Will a Nationwide Poll Really Help the DPP Move Toward the Center?

Will a Nationwide Poll Really Help the DPP Move Toward the Center?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 27, 2011

The curtain has just rung down on the Democratic Progressive Party's Plenary Session. It approved the use of a nationwide poll to determine the party's candidates for president and regional legislators. This highlights once again the DPP's distinctive brand of "democratic centralism." The real decision-making power remains in the hands of factional heads and the party nomenklatura. This sort of "joint factional rule" can control how the party goes about reforming its primary process. But can it help the DPP set forth a compelling cross-Strait policy platform? Can it help it to move toward the center? That is the really big question.
Party members who supported a nationwide poll, fought party members who wanted nominees to be chosen by party members exclusively. The result during the DPP's plenary session was a tempest in a teapot. The so-called "party members only faction" was eventually defeated. This was not surprising. Change within the DPP has never been from the bottom up. When Chen Shui-bian ran for president, he adopted his "new centrist path." Later, the party adopted its "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." All these changes were initiated from the top down. The recent intraparty elections made major changes to the party's primary process. These too were the result of joint factional rule. Annette Lu found herself isolated within the party. She waved the banner of democracy within the party. But in the end she was unable to overcome a consensus reached by the factions.

People have joked that the DPP was founded 20 years ago, but has since adopted at least 20 methods for candidate nomination during its party primaries. The method is changed every time an election rolls around, During its early years, party cadres would conduct candidate evaluations. These candidate evaluations would be used in conjuction with party member balloting. Later, party member votes and opinion polls would be weighted equally. At one time they were weighted 30/70. At another time Deep Green votes were weighted more heavily. That was the case when the "Blue Excluded Opinion Polls" were used. Today, it is using a nationwide poll. The methods for candidate selection keep changing. But in fact there is only one problem that must be solved, and that is the problem with "phantom party members."

Major players and factions within the DPP have long maintained hordes of phantom party members. These phantom party members infested the 2008 legislative elections. Many candidates adopted a centrist path. First they had to get past the major players. They then had to get past the "Blues excluded opinion poll." After negotiating these two gauntlets, most centrist oriented candidates were either dead or hanging by a thread. The result was an election debacle. It almost destroyed the younger generation of Democratic Progressive Party officials. They had to rebuild amidst the ruins.

Given this history, the Democratic Progressive Party leadership long ago rejected the possibility of a primary process in which candidates are determined exclusively by party member ballots. But a final factor persuaded the various factions within the party to accept a nationwide poll. Party leaders issued repeated warnings. If prosecutors were to take advantage of the party primaries to launch an investigation into phantom party members, the DPP would lose the election, even before it was held.

Concern over this issue is the greatest in the DPP's legislators without portfolio nominations. Legislators without portfolio represent a political party. They cannot be nominated in the same way as a party's presidential or regional legislative candidates, by relying on nationwide polls. But if party member balloting plays any part in their selection, phantom voters may appear out of the woodwork, or vote buying may rear its ugly head. The DPP Central Executive Committee eventually reached a majority decision. All legislators without portfolio would be nominated by a nominating committee. On the surface the party chairman expanded his or her power. In fact future candidatesfor legislator without portfolio will require the support of two-thirds of the members of the Central Executive Committee. This means that any nominations will be the result of a compromise between various factions. They will be the product of joint factional rule. Even the party chairman will not be able to control this process.

Phantom party members remain a concern. But the nationwide poll approach for primary nominations is a major change. Why did the factions and party members agree to relinquish power? Because everyone in the Democratic Progressive Party, from top to bottom, is determined to win. That is why they are willing to incorporate a nationwide poll that includes the opinions of swing voters. This raises another question. The entire Democratic Progressive Party is pinning its hopes on the so-called nationwide poll. Can the nationwide poll really persuade the DPP to adopt a more centrist path?

The actual situation suggests otherwise. The nationwide poll approach for the primary nomination processs has just been passed. Ker Chien-min is the Chairman of the DPP legislative caucus. He said that the most important thing during the 2012 election is to "avoid infighting." Therefore all nominations should avoid the primaries. Based on this logic, although the presidential candidate is supposed to be determined by a nationwide poll, the party "must nevertheless avoid a nationwide poll!"

On the surface, this addresses the issue of residual infighting from 2008. But at a deeper level, it addresses the issue of how to incorporate the Republic of China into the system. The DPP is still unclear about how to create a stable framework for cross-Strait relations. Therefore it cannot withstand intraparty debates during the party primaries. The party leadership even lacks confidence in the nationwide poll. It cannot believe that debating the facts could help the truth come to light.

The changes to the primary nomination process are important. But consider the experience of the British Labour Party. The system must be changed. Political leaders must offer a viable political platform. They must offer thoughful policies. Only then can win voter confidence. Therefore, if the DPP wishes to return to power, a nationwide poll is merely the first step. Everyone is still waiting for Tsai Ing-wen's Platform for the Coming Decade.

「全民調」真能帶領民進黨往中間走？
2011-01-27 中國時報

甫於日前落幕的民進黨全代會，通過以全民調的方式來選出總統及區域立委候選人，再次凸顯民進黨「民主集中制」的特質，真正掌握決策權的是派系頭頭及黨內精英；只是，這樣的「派系共治」方式，即使能夠主導初選制度的改革，但是否能讓民進黨提出一套穩健可行的兩岸論述、進一步往中間走，才是令人關注的。

全民調派大戰黨員派，這是民進黨全代會前的茶壺風暴。但所謂的黨員派最後敗下陣來，並不令人意外，因為，主導民進黨改變的，從來不是黨員由下而上的力量，相反的，從陳水扁參選時的新中間路線、到通過《台灣前途決議文》，大多是由上而下的改變。而這次的黨內選舉辦法大調整，同樣是派系共治下的結果，在黨內落單的呂秀蓮，即使援引黨內民主大旗，最後還是打不過派系共識。

有人戲稱，自民進黨創黨二十幾年來，實行過的黨內初選辦法，至少也有二十幾種。每逢選舉就要改一次，從早期的幹部評鑑併行黨員投票、黨員及民調投票各半、有時是三七比，或是加重深綠支持者的排藍民調，再到現在的全民調。黨內初選辦法一變再變，要解決的問題只有一個：就是人頭黨員問題。

長期以來，民進黨內就有大戶或派系豢養人頭黨員，為患最烈的應該是二○○八年立委選舉，許多採取中間路線的候選人，要先過人頭大戶這一關，接下來再面對排藍民調，經過這兩關嚴酷的篩選，中間傾向的候選人非死即傷，不但直接造成選舉大敗，更讓民進黨青壯派差點毀於一旦，必須在廢墟中重建。

在這樣的背景下，民進黨領導精英早就排除初選黨員投票的可能性，但說服各派系接受全民調的最後一根稻草，就是黨內精英一再警告：檢調一旦趁初選時、發動調查人頭黨員，民進黨形同是未選先敗。

其中，以民進黨不分區立委提名辦法，最能凸顯此一疑慮。不分區立委代表政黨，不能如總統或區域立委一般，全部以民調方式產生，但即使只是部分採用黨員投票，都可能爆發人頭黨員集體投票、或買票弊案，民進黨中執會最後以絕對多數通過，不分區提名全部交由提名委員會決定，表面上是黨主席擴權，事實上將來的不分區名單必須有三分之二的中執委支持才會通過，預告這必然是各派系妥協之後的名單，同樣是派系共治的產物，即使黨主席也不可能主導。

當然，即使有人頭黨員的疑慮，全民調的初選方式還是劇烈的調整。各派系及黨員為何同意放棄權力，最大的關鍵在於：民進黨舉黨上下都充滿著「贏的意志」，因此他們願意採取可以納入中間民意的全民調。接下來的問題是，當整個民進黨都對所謂的全民調寄以厚望時，全民調真的能帶領民進黨往中間走嗎？

實際的狀況似乎並非如此，全民調初選辦法才剛通過，民進黨立院黨團總召柯建銘即表示，二○一二的選舉，最重要的就是要「避免內鬥」，所以一切提名都應該避免初選，在這樣的前提之下，即使總統候選人已通過由全民調產生，「還是要避免去全民調！」

表面上，這是對二○○八年黨內惡鬥餘悸猶存，但更深層的背景則是，對於如何納入中華民國體制、如何建立一套穩定的兩岸關係架構，民進黨目前仍然混沌不明，也因此禁不起黨內初選的論辯，即使是在全民調這樣一個全民的舞台上，民進黨精英仍然沒有信心，不敢相信真理有可能愈辯愈明。

可以說，初選制度的調整當然很重要，但是觀諸英國工黨的經驗，制度調整之外，政黨領導人還必須擘畫可行的政黨綱領，及提出周延的政策、政見，才可能得到選民的信賴；因此，民進黨要重返執政，全民調只是第一步而已，大家仍然在期待她的十年政綱。