Timothy Ting, Zhang Xin, and Thomas Friedman

Timothy Ting, Zhang Xin, and Thomas Friedman
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 10, 2012

Summary: These three names are being mentioned in the same breath. Why? Because Taipei Vice Mayor Timothy Ting and Mainland entrepreneur Zhang Xin, a woman, engaged in a mini-debate over "democracy vs. efficiency" at the Boao Forum. And because New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman offered some interesting comments on this subject.

Full Text below:

These three names are being mentioned in the same breath. Why? Because Taipei Vice Mayor Timothy Ting and Mainland entrepreneur Zhang Xin, a woman, engaged in a mini-debate over "democracy vs. efficiency" at the Boao Forum. And because New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman offered some interesting comments on this subject.

Zhang Xin and Timothy Ting's mini-debate began with the Wenlin Yuan Incident. First consider the two part dialogue between these individuals. Zhang Xin asked, "The Wang family residence has been bulldozed, leading to social tensions. Will democracy delay urban development?" Timothy Ting answered, "We very much believe in democracy. But we will never allow democracy to delay urban development." Zhang Xin asked, "Suppose you had total freedom? Suppose you could plan and build an entire city? Suppose you could ignore public opposition? Suppose you could ignore the media. Suppose you could ignore student protests? What would you do to Taipei City?" Timothy Ting answered, "You have described a very frightening situation. We need the media. We need the City Council. We need them to ensure balanced development. A city that lacks a media, that lacks a City Council, is not a healthy city."

This was a mini-debate between "democracy vs. dictatorship" and "democracy vs. efficiency." It is a major issue that politicians and economists the world over have contemplated at length in recent years. It is an issue that concerns more than urban development. It is an issue that concerns democratic capitalism and authoritarian planned economies. This has been especially true ever since the 2008 financial tsunami erupted on Wall Street. The morality of democratic capitalism, and whether it is self-correcting, is being challenged. Consider Mainland China's authoritarian state. Democratic nations have revealed how inefficient they are at crisis management. The expression "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" was once a punchline. Now it is a political and economic model taken seriously. As a result, Zhang Xin betrayed a hint of self-satisfaction.

Timothy Ting addressed the moral issue. But he deftly ignored the charge that democracies are inefficient. Thomas Friedman was more outspoken. Friedman compared the United States to Mainland China, He said that Mainland China is receiving 90% of the potential benefits of a second rate political system, one that is predominantly a dictatorship. The United States, on the other hand, is getting only 50% of the potential benefits of a first rate political system. The United States is getting far less than it can, should, and must from its system of democracy.

Thomas Friedman's most compelling thesis is the "If the U.S. could be China for one day" thesis. If only the U.S. could be China for one day, he said, how great that would be, On that one day, it could pass all the right laws and regulations, It could overcome all the difficulties in decision-making, which constitute the worst aspect of democracy. One day would be enough. The next day the US could revert to what it was before. This of course was sheer fantasy. Friedman believes that democracy is a "first-class political system." But he also feels that democracy has weaknesses. In this regard, Timothy Ting, as the vice mayor of a city, had less latitude for free expression than Friedman.

Differences in systems inevitably affect urban development. The most obvious contrast is between urban development in India and on Mainland China. On Mainland China, a white circle with the character for "demolish" is painted on a wall. A few months later, an entire city block has been leveled and turned into giant high-rise buildings. Hundreds of thousands of families may be displaced. There is no media coverage. There is no City Council to debate the merits and demerits of the plan. There is no political party to speak for the families. They are forced to sacrifice their lives and their fortunes for "The City." But such a city is no longer "their city." People know this is not right. That is why the people of Wukan Village put their foot down.

Worse still, differences in political systems impact more than Urban Development. The resulting cities may be beautiful. But they are made ugly by the autocracy and corruption within. These are the city's real inner qualities. Everyone wants to see cities filled with beautiful buildings. But cities will not be beautiful merely because we built beautiful buildings.

On Taiwan, old, short, and ugly buildings mingle with new, tall, and beautiful buildings. Motorcycles, cars, and buses mingle with each other. They make the cities less than completely beautiful. But Taiwan took this path of mix and match, all the way. Buildings and vehicles coexist alongside each other. Beauty and ugliness coexist alongside each other. The cities are beautiful because they reveal the vicissitudes Taiwan has endured to get where it is. A single family named Wang was able to create a media splash. This means Taiwan's streets are a true reflection of Taiwan's democracy. The not so beautiful cityscape reveals Taiwan's inner beauty.

Taiwan emerged with great difficulty from martial law and authoritarian rule. Probably no one wants to turn the clock back and "be China for just one day." But suppose you weren't the Vice-Mayor? Suppose you could reaffirm your belief in democracy. Suppose you could admit that Friedman's concerns were all too real. We resolutely oppose the "totally free" system of government Zhang Xin described. But neither are we willing to see the futile wheel-spinning described by Friedman. Still less are we willing to see democratic divisiveness.

Many people on Taiwan empathize with Friedman. They agree that they get far less than they could, should, and must from the their system of democracy.

丁庭宇‧張欣‧佛里曼
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.04.10 03:26 am

把這三個名字連在一起，是因台北市副市長丁庭宇，與大陸女企業家張欣，日前在博鰲論壇對「民主vs.效率」有一場微辯論；而紐約時報專欄作家佛里曼對這個題目也有過頗可玩味的論述。

張欣與丁庭宇的微辯論，是從文林苑事件出發。先摘兩段二人之間的對話。張欣問：「王家的房子被推土機推倒，導致社會緊張，民主是否會放緩城市發展呢？」丁庭宇答：「我們非常相信民主，永遠不會使民主拖延城市的發展。」張欣再問：「如果你有完全自由，可以建設一座城市，你不用擔心民眾，不用管媒體，也不用擔心學生，你會為台北市做些什麼？」丁庭宇答：「妳描述的其實是一個很恐怖的情況，我們需要媒體，需要市議會，需要他們為城市的發展做出平衡……，一個城市如果沒有媒體，沒有市議員，那就不是一個健康的城市。」

這是一場「民主vs.專制」、「民主vs.效率」的微辯論，其實也正是近幾年來全球政經人士腦中共同思考的一個大課題；且不只是停留在「城市發展」的層次，而是對民主資本主義及專制計畫經濟的全盤再思考。尤其在二○○八年金融海嘯自華爾街爆發後，資本主義民主體制的道德性及自我糾錯機制受到強烈質疑；相對於中國大陸那樣的專制國家，民主國家顯現的效率及危機管理能力相對低下，「有中國特色的社會主義」儼然不再是一個任人嗤之以鼻的笑話，而成了可以認真面對的政經模式。所以，在張欣的口吻中，也聽得出來似有幾分「優越感」。

丁庭宇的答辯，有足夠的道德立場，但他卻技巧地迴避了民主制度在效率面的問題；而佛里曼則對此直言無諱。佛里曼以美國與中國大陸對比，他說：「我們相信，中國有九十％的潛在利益來自二流的政治制度，極大部分都來自獨裁統治；但美國的潛在利益只有五十％來自我們一流的政治制度。我們所得到的遠遠少於我們可以、應該、也必須從我們的民主體制裡所獲得的。」

「假如美國能做一天中國」，更是佛里曼最勁爆的理論。他說：要是美國能做一天中國有多好，在這一天裡，我們可以制定所有正確的法律規章，克服了民主政治難以作成決策的最差部分，僅僅一天就夠了，第二天我們就可以做回原來的美國。這是一個狂想，卻顯示即使佛里曼相信民主政治是「一流的政治制度」，但他也認定民主政治有其弱點。在這一方面，丁庭宇的副市長身分，使他的言論空間不如佛里曼。

制度的差異，難免影響到城市發展。最顯著的對比，是以印度的城市建設與中國大陸比較。但是，像中國大陸那樣，在所有的牆面上用白漆畫個圓圈，裡頭寫個「拆」字，一整片區塊幾個月後就成了一大片高樓大廈；這裡頭可能有成百成千的顛沛流離的「王家」，沒有媒體、沒有市議員、沒有政黨為他們說話，他們用身家生命去成就了曾是自己的「城市」，但自此這個城卻也可能不再是他們的「城市」了。這當然不是天經地義的做法，否則就不會有烏坎村。

尤有甚者，制度的差異影響所及尚不只在「城市發展」而已；在漂亮的城市裡，因專制腐敗而在那些美麗樓宇中藏污納垢的「不漂亮」元素，才是那個城市真正的內在素質。誰都希望見到城市有漂亮的建築，但城市不會只因美麗的樓宇而漂亮！

台灣的市容，「老矮醜」的建築與「新高美」混搭，摩托車與轎車、公車混搭，使得城市真的不夠漂亮；但台灣就是在這種「混搭」之中一路走來，那種「共生／共榮／共醜」的景致，顯示了台灣一頁美麗的滄桑，也使得僅僅一個「王家」就能鬧出如此轟動的新聞。由此可證，台灣的街道真正反映了台灣的民主內涵，這是從不漂亮的市容看到了台灣的內在之美。

在台灣，好不容易從戒嚴威權時代走過來，大概沒有人會想回頭去「做一天的中國」；但是，如果你不具副市長的官職，卻也可在肯定民主的同時，承認佛里曼的憂慮亦具有相當的真實性。我們絕對反對一個如張欣所說具有「完全自由」的政府，但也不願見到如佛里曼所形容的內耗空轉、甚至撕裂的民主。

其實，不少的台灣人都會有像佛里曼一樣的感慨：「我們所得到的遠遠少於我們可以、應該、也必須從我們的民主體制裡所獲得的。」