Political Parties Must Not Discourage Candidates from Running

Political Parties Must Not Discourage Candidates from Running
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 4, 2011

The 2012 presidential race is about to begin. The ruling and opposition parties are currently attempting to clear the battlefield, Fierce fighting has broken out within the DPP. The DPP primaries remain unique to Taiwan. The party has issued a high-minded call for "solidarity." Annette Lu is the only candidate with the courage to flout the call. Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang, the two candidates with the most influence, have heeded the call. Both are on hold. Neither dares to speak out. If they fail to use the primaries to debate the issues, and express their own reason for running, they will squander a precious opportunity, not just for themselves, but for Taiwan as well.

The DPP has an established timetable. On March 21, the party will begin candidate registration. It will complete its public opinion poll in late April. It will announce its presidential candidate on May 4. The next two months will be the moment of truth for the DPP elites. Annette Lu is not waiting for party approval before registering. She cannot wait and has already declared her candidacy. But she is not the most powerful figure within the DPP. She announced her candidacy at an event commemorating the 2/28 Incident. The result was anti-climatic. This shows that she no longer commands much voter support.

Annette Lu's time has passed. But the recommendations she shouted from the margins of power are worth noting. She suggested holding several primary debates, ideally one in each city and county. Such an intense selection process would produce a candidate able to withstand pressure. She mocked Tsai Ing-wen, saying she remains untested, and that was why Tsai fumbled the 18% preferential interest rate issue.

In fact the model Annette Lu described is the one used in the United States. U.S. presidential primaries last more than six months. Each state adopts a different approach. Some states vote according to party membership, Some states employ party caucus primaries. Caucus members debate then determine which candidate to support. Such a system may appear to waste time and money. But arduous party primaries can bring out the candidates' potential. They can highlight the meaning of the election. During the party primaries, Barak Obama grasped Americans' desire for change. This enabled him to defeat an opponent as powerful as Hillary Clinton.

Some nations lean toward a presidential system. The presidential candidate's personality traits, world view, and experience are all indicators of the candidate's administrative style. These are not something that can be summed up by the candidate's party affiliation. This is true not just in the United States. The Republic of China has held three presidential elections on Taiwan. It elected Lee Teng-hui, Chen Shui-bian, and Ma Ying-jeou. All three had ambiguous relationships to their respective political parties. They were all party members. But candidates from the same party often present very different faces to the world. They often offer very different political proposals. They often exhibit very different character traits.

Party primaries in the US are seldom carried out under the banner of "solidarity." They seldom involve such feudal gestures as "persuading a candidate to withdraw." Clinton told Obama: You are still young. Let me go first this time. But Clinton and Obama fought bitterly, until a clear winner emerged. Only then did the loser withdraw. This did not prevent the Democratic Party from winning the presidency. Obama even recruited Clinton, making her part of his "team of rivals."

Taiwan is smaller in scale. Party primaries need not be as hard fought as they are in the United States. But the unique characteristics of individual candidates should not be drowned out by calls for party solidarity. Even supporters of the DPP should be able to understand this. Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang have different policies. Su may be convinced "If not me, who?" He may be convinced that "time waits for no man," and that "my time is now." But what everyone wants to know is why he is running. Does his oft repeated "Taiwan Consensus" contain any substance whatsoever? Or is it merely an empty slogan?

Tsai Ing-wen wants to break through the glass ceiling for women, She also represents generational change within the DPP. Recently, she finally laid her cards on the table and said "Taiwan needs its next generation of leaders. Let people under forty see the future." This is indeed something worthy of debate, But amidst calls for DPP "solidarity," all these voices have been silenced. All we see is party deal-making, filled with intrigue, and utterly lacking innovation or creativity.

The DPP has its own unique subculture. But much of this is of Tsai's own making. The DPP Central Committee is powerful. Annette Lu advocated a "traveling political debate." In the end, only one debate remained. One is perhaps better than none. This same conservative atmosphere prevails elsewhere. Some DPP elites hope that Su and Tsai can form a single ticket. They hope the party will not need to hold any primaries whatsoever.

For the DPP the point of soliarity is to seize political power. But for voters, the point of solidarity is to unite under the banner of DPP ideas. Is the DPP seeking solidarity to avoid discussing policy? Especially cross-strait policy? Especially untested policy proposals? Especially policy proposals unable to withstand the test of a presidential election?

In nations leaning toward the presidential system, elections are decided not merely by party prestige. The candidate's style is equally important. Can artificial candidate solidarity create party solidarity? No one knows. But without competition, a party will never find its best candidate.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2011.03.04
社論－朝野政黨 別再玩團結勸退戲碼
本報訊

　二○一二總統大選即將起跑，朝野政黨現階段都各自在清理戰場，民進黨表面上鬥得刀光劍影，依然是一場非常台灣特色的黨內初選。在團結的大帽子下，除了呂秀蓮敢於突圍外，最有實力的蔡英文及蘇貞昌，目前都是欲言又止，不敢暢所欲言；未來他們若不能藉著初選辯論，來表達自己參選的意義，不但對他們自己對台灣，都是浪費了一次寶貴的機會。

　依照民進黨既定時程，該黨將於三月二十一日開始進行領表登記，四月底完成民調，五月四日就公告總統候選人。可以說，接下來兩個月將是民進黨菁英激戰的關鍵時刻。日前呂秀蓮不待黨內登記、已迫不急待宣布參選，但她不是民進黨的實力派人物，二二八宣布參選場合有如反高潮，只證明她人氣不再。

　呂秀蓮的時機已過，但她從權力邊緣喊出的建議，卻未必不值一聽。她建議多辦幾場初選辯論，最好是每縣市都辦，經過這樣密集的挑戰，才能找出真正有抗壓性的候選人，她還諳諷蔡英文未經考驗，才會在領十八趴的議題上失手。

　事實上，呂秀蓮描繪的是美國的形態。美國總統初選時間長達半年以上，各州還採取不同方式，有的州是由登記的黨員投票，有的州還採取黨團會議初選，黨團代表討論後決定支持人選；這樣的制度表面上看起來浪費時間、金錢，但高難度的黨內初選，卻也激發出候選人的潛力，必須凸顯自己參選的意義。歐巴馬當時就是掌握美國人求變的心理，才能打敗實力強大的對手希拉蕊。

　可以說，在傾向總統制的國家，總統的人格特質、世界觀、政策經歷等個人條件，對於未來的施政風格都是動見觀瞻，不是政黨屬性可以概括。這不只在美國，台灣過去三任民選總統，從李登輝、陳水扁到馬英九，都和他們所屬政黨若即若離，可以說，即使同一政黨，並不代表候選人都只能同樣面孔、提出同樣的主張，而能各有特色。

　因此美國政黨黨內初選，甚少抬出「團結」的大帽子、祭出「勸退」這樣的封建戲碼。希拉蕊絕對拉不下臉來對歐巴馬說:你還年輕，這次就先讓我吧！希拉蕊和歐巴馬就是結結實實打到分出勝負，才宣布退選，但不妨礙民主黨贏得總統，歐巴馬還找希拉蕊組成「政敵團隊」。

　台灣幅員小，黨內初選未必要如美國一樣嚴苛，但參選人的特色不該淹沒在政黨的團結聲中，即使是民進黨的支持者也有資格了解，蔡英文與蘇貞昌的政策主張有何不同。如果蘇貞昌深感「捨我其誰」，大家有興趣的是，他除了「時不我與」這樣的個人因素外，他參選的使命感所為何來，他千呼萬喚始提出來的「台灣共識」，有沒有更具體的內容。

　對蔡英文而言，她有打破女性玻璃屋頂的意義，她也代表民進黨內的世代交替。近來她總算喊出「台灣需要下一世代的領導人︱要讓四十歲以下的人看到未來」，這是值得論辯的議題，但在民進黨的「團結」聲中，這些不一樣的聲音全都不見了，最後大家看到的就是一場充滿權謀、了無新意的黨內協調。

　當然，除了民進黨文化外，這種現象是蔡英文自己造成的。在黨中央的強力主導下，呂秀蓮當時力主的「巡迴政見辯論」，最後只剩一場，可說是聊勝於無；另外，在同樣保守的氛圍下，部分民進黨菁英甚至期待蘇蔡合，最好連初選都不必辦了。

　對民進黨來說，團結最重要的意義在於取得執政權，但對選民而言，團結旗幟下的民進黨提出何種主張才是重點。如果，民進黨團結的目的，就是要迴避對政策、尤其是兩岸政策的討論，則未經考驗的主張，到大選時一樣禁不起考驗。

　更重要的是，傾向總統制的國家，決定選民投票的，不只是政黨聲望，總統候選人的風格一樣重要。勉強整合出來的人選能否促成黨內大團結猶未可知，但是未經競爭，很肯定無法找到最適合的候選人！