Will the Real Tsai Ing-wen Please Stand?

Will the Real Tsai Ing-wen Please Stand?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 6, 2010

During the recent five cities elections, the KMT won more seats, but the DPP received more votes. Both two parties could claim victories of a sort. But neither party could claim to be the clear winner. From an individual perspective, Democratic Progressive Party chairman Tsai Ing-wen was the big winner. Her recent election bid has finally affirmed her position of leadership within the DPP. Tsai Ing-wen has risen. But people still know little about her. Often their feelings toward her run to extremes. She has qualified for the next stage in her political rise. But her rise may lead to the re-emergence of political uncertainty on Taiwan.

Elections are exercises in pragmatism. The DPP is nothing if not pragmatic. Tsai Ing-wen has relinquished her original career goals. Beginning in 2008, she began leading the Democratic Progressive Party through its downturn. But for Democratic Progressive Party elders, Tsai Ing-wen, having never run for public office, remained untested. During power struggles within the DPP, she had no special advantage. But the five cities elections changed all that. Su Tseng-chang is another highly vocal presidential candidate within the party. His showing during the recent elections was less than stellar. It was considerably less stellar than Tsai Ing-wen's. In the DPP, if one succeeds one is a hero, if one fails, one is a non-entity. Therefore except for a few fringe elements, Tsai Ing-wen is the DPP's prime candidate for president in 2012.

But Tsai Ing-wen's struggle has only begun. Voters view the presidential election and the five cities elections differently. Also, Tsai Ing-wen has never had the courage to confront the defects in the DPP's political path. Whether the DPP changes its political path may determine whether it wins or loses the presidential election.

The DPP received more votes than the KMT. DPP Central Standing Committee members from all factions have lept to the same conclusion. They have concluded that the public has given the DPP's ideological path its stamp of approval. The reality is that Tsai Ing-wen waged a very un-DPP campaign. She avoided inciting "ethnic" (communal) strife. She avoided foul language. She avoided emotional outbursts and person abuse. She even avoided attacking opponents head on. This was the most emotionally restrained election campaign waged by the DPP in a decade. Was this "Little Ying's" political path? Or was it the Democratic Progressive Party's political path? More importantly, has the DPP really changed in its heart of hearts?

Over the past two years, the DPP has avoided discussing cross-Strait policy. DPP cross-Strait policy remains a combination of its Taiwan independence party platform and its Resolution on Taiwan's Future. Grass-roots party members also wave the banner of independence and nation building. Democratic Progressive Party legislators, even when dealing with issues unrelated to reunification or independence, seeth with hatred for Mainland China.

Rampant corruption during Chen Shui-bian's presidency is also unfinished DPP business. The DPP has never made a clean break with Ah-Bian. During the recent elections, Deep Greens voted for Ah-Bian's "One Nation Each Side Connection." They helped the Democratic Progressive Party marginalize the Taiwan Solidarity Union. This enabled the DPP to appeal to swing votes without concern that it would alienate Deep Greens. But fortune and misfortune go hand in hand. Nearly 80% of the supporters of the Ah-Bian Connection were elected. They accounted for nearly a quarter of DPP city councilor seats. This handed Ah-Bian a major bargaining chip. One day, if he turns against his current allies, Tsai Ing-wen or the DPP may pay a heavy price.

The DPP launched a coordinated attack, gaining support from swing voters and supporters of the Ah-Bian Connnection alike. But what exactly is "Little Ying's" political path? What exactly is on Tsai Ing-wen's mind? This has long remained a mystery. Acting on behalf of former President Lee Teng-hui, Tsai Ing-wen trotted out the "two-states theory." As Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, under Chen Shui-bian, she obstinately opposed the 1992 Consensus. This year, during her debate with President Ma Ying-jeou, she blasted ECFA. She alleged that it would change the balance of power in East Asia and hand the Mainland a strategic advantage. She alleged that ECFA would increase the gap between rich and poor on Taiwan. Nevertheless, Tsai Ing-wen deliberately played down the ECFA issue during the five cities elections.

For Tsai Ing-wen, this may have been a deliberate attempt at "strategic ambiguity." She may have wanted to leave room for future negotiations. But lest we forget, the biggest fear during elections remains uncertainty. Washington has close relations with Taipei. Beijing is concerned about stability in the Taiwan Strait. Voters and foreign investors will not necessarily be happy to see the status quo overturned.

Tsai Ing-wen has many advantages over the "princes of the DPP" and other DPP elites. DPP officials got their start by participating in political movements, the same as the KMT. They know how to inspire voter enthusiasm. They are adept at political strategy and analysis. But a lifetime of politicking may lead one to confuse political struggle with political governance. This may make partisan politics even more polarized. By contrast, Tsai Ing-wen began as an academic. Her cleaner image has inspired greater voter trust. More importantly, Tsai Ing-wen's involvement has provided the DPP with another perspective, She intends to promote her Political Platform for the Coming Decade, to address the real issues currently confronting Taiwan, including an aging population, global warming, and the gap between rich and poor.

Some in the Green Camp have compared Tsai Ing-wen to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Indeed, both are quiet masters of political manipulation. But Germany has a cabinet system and a coalition government. Whenever Merkel promotes a policy, she must compromise. By contrast, the Republic of China is currently leaning toward a presidential system. The president-elect enjoys "winner-take-all" status. This makes "Little Ying's" political path a matter of deep concern. When the Democratic Progressive Party discusses its Platform for the Coming Decade, it must honestly champion the path of moderation. Otherwise winning the presidency will not be quite so easy.

哪個才是真正的蔡英文？
2010-12-06 中國時報

這次五都選舉結果，國民黨贏席次、民進黨贏選票，兩黨都有各自解讀的空間，可說沒有那個黨是絕對的贏家。但若從個人的角度解讀，民進黨黨主席蔡英文才是最大的贏家，經過這次選舉，她終於確立了在民進黨內的領導地位。只是，在蔡英文向上躍升的同時，大家對她的了解，其實還是非常模糊，有時還相當兩極，她的可能出線，也讓台灣政局再度出現不確定性。

選舉很現實，民進黨更現實，即使蔡英文放下個人原先的生涯規畫，自二○○八起帶領民進黨走過最低迷的時期，但對民進黨諸大老來說，蔡英文個人並未經過選舉的考驗，在民進黨內的權力鬥爭中，她並沒有當然的優勢。但經過五都選舉後，這種現象完全改觀，由於黨內另一位角逐總統呼聲最高的蘇貞昌，這次選得並不理想，比蔡英文相對遜色，對以成敗論英雄的民進黨來說，除了少數邊緣的雜音外，蔡英文目前已是多數派系認定、角逐二○一二大位的人選。

但是，蔡英文的硬仗才要開始，這不只是選民看待總統大選和五都選舉的標準不同而已，密切相關的是，蔡英文從未勇於處理民進黨內的路線問題，但民進黨的路線是否調整，卻是總統大選勝敗的關鍵。

這次民進黨總票數打敗國民黨，各派系及民進黨中常會都認為，這代表民進黨的路線受到人民肯定。但真實的狀況恐怕是，蔡英文此次打的是一場非常不民進黨的選舉，不挑撥族群、盡量不爆粗口、不激情謾罵，甚至不正面攻擊對手，這是十年來民進黨表現最溫和的一場選舉，但這是「小英路線」？還是「民進黨路線」？更重要的是，民進黨骨子裡真的改變了嗎？

過去兩年，民進黨內迴避討論兩岸政策，到現在為止，民進黨兩岸大方向，仍是台獨黨綱與台灣前途決議文並立，基層黨員則還扛著獨立建國的大旗，民進黨立委即使面對無關統獨的陸配議題，也充滿了仇中情結。

扁總統任內貪腐案，更是民進黨另一個未竟之業，民進黨從未公開與扁劃清界線。這次挺扁的一邊一國連線成為深綠吸票機，幫民進黨將台聯邊緣化，讓民進黨在爭取中間選票時無後顧之憂；但禍福相倚，挺扁連線當選率高達八成，占民進黨市議員席次四分之一，這是扁的一大籌碼，他那一天翻臉不認人，蔡英文或民進黨遲早可能還是要付出代價。

就如民進黨這次以中間路線和挺扁路線分進合擊一樣，小英路線的內涵究竟為何？蔡英文真正的想法是什麼？一直是個謎。過去蔡英文曾受前總統李登輝委託，提出兩國論；在陳水扁任內擔任陸委會主委時，曾強烈反對九二共識；今年她和總統馬英九辯論，批判兩岸簽ＥＣＦＡ，不但會改變東亞的均勢、讓大陸更占優勢，她更強調，ＥＣＦＡ將惡化台灣的貧富差距。雖然如此，蔡英文卻又刻意主導在五都選舉淡化ＥＣＦＡ議題，

對蔡英文而言，這樣的戰略模糊也許是刻意的，以便預留未來談判操作空間，但別忘了，選舉最怕的是不確定因素，和台灣密切相關的美國、大陸都擔憂因此而衝擊台海穩定，同樣的，選民和外資也不見得樂見現狀翻盤。

持平而言，和民進黨的天王或菁英比起來，蔡英文有不少優勢，民進黨要員都是從政治運動起家，相較於國民黨，更懂得激發選民熱情，也更擅長謀略及政治情勢研判；但是，一輩子搞政治的結果是，常常將治理政府與政治鬥爭混淆，使政黨政治更兩極對立；相對的，蔡英文學者出身，不但較容易以清新形象，得到中間選民的信賴，更重要的是，蔡英文的深入參與，確實為民進黨提供另一個視角，她有意研擬十年政綱，探討人口老化、全球暖化，更全力主打貧富差距等議題，都較切合台灣當前的現況。

綠營內已有人將蔡英文比擬作德國總理梅克爾，確實，兩人都是不動聲色的政治操作高手，但是德國是內閣制，更是聯合內閣，梅克爾推動任何政策都要經過妥協；相對的，台灣已偏向總統制，當選總統的就是「贏者全拿」，這更讓「小英路線」備受矚目，民進黨接下來討論十年政綱時，如不能提出真正的中道路線，總統大位未必那麼唾手可得！