The Constitution is the Republic of China's Operating Manual

The Constitution is the Republic of China's Operating Manual
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 6, 2012

Summary: Frank Hsieh has authored a new book, "The Future: A Different Taiwan." In it he compares politics on Taiwan to an automobile accident. He says automobile accidents have two causes. One. The driver. Two. The automobile. He said the political problems plaguing Taiwan cannot be resolved merely by changing drivers.

Full Text below:

Frank Hsieh has authored a new book, "The Future: A Different Taiwan." In it he compares politics on Taiwan to an automobile accident. He says automobile accidents have two causes. One. The driver. Two. The automobile. He said the political problems plaguing Taiwan cannot be resolved merely by changing drivers.

Frank Hsieh's new book explores national and constitutional allegiance. He asks whether holding a presidential election every four years can really solve the problems plaguing Taiwan. He provides his own answer. He says democratic elections can no longer cure the long-standing ills plaguing Taiwan. Changing the ruling party merely replaces the person who manipulates the public. It merely replaces the politician who lies and shirks responsibility. It does nothing to heal society's wounds.

We may wish to borrow Frank Hsieh's analogy when exploring the problems plaguing Taiwan. First of all, the Republic of China is an automobile with a unique and problematic design. Worse, everyone who has driven it has objected to its design. Some hae even advocated dismantling it altogether. Taiwan independence advocats have gotten behind the wheel of the Republic of China.But they pretended it was their "Nation of Taiwan." The vehicle was wrecked, and the driver was hospitalized. This gives rise to another problem. The majority of people on Taiwan are now afraid to change drivers.

In fact, modifications to the Republic of China have never ceased. Martial law was lifted. The entire legislature was replaced. The public participated in direct presidential elections. The legislature passed amendments in "response to the requirements for national unity." The government adopted a "1992 consensus" and "one China, different interpretations" strategy. The Republic of China was significantly changed. But regardless how much it was modified, the Republic of China retains the basic structure of the Republic of China. Can this vehicle be successfully driven on the road? That depends on the driver's state of mind. The driver may object to the vehicle he has been entrusted to drive. He may even hate it in his bones. A Taiwan independence advocate may find himself behind the wheel of the Republic of China. In which case a car crash and injuries are highly likely.

Frank Hsieh appears to be addressing Taiwan independence advocates. He resorts to vague, round about, hesitant, even self-contradictory rhetoric, He hopes to establish a "constitutional consensus" within the Green Camp. He wants them to swear allegiance to "Taiwan's Constitution," in other words, the Constitution of the Republic of China. When face to face with (Mainland] China, he wants them to do so under the aegis of the Constitution of the Republic of China. He wants them to do so under the Republic of China's national title and national flag. He wants to begin with "exchanges and dialogue." What Frank Hsieh means is that the Green Camp should first swear allegiance to the Constitution of the Republic of China, to its national title and national flag. He wants it to begin by conducting "exchanges and dialogue" with the public on Taiwan.

Frank Hsieh says the problems bedeviling politics on Taiwan cannot be solved merely by changing drivers. But his real concern is that the public is afraid to change the ruling party, It is afraid to allow the DPP behind the wheel. Therefore if the DPP refuses to change its attitude, it may never be allowed behind the wheel of the Republic of China again. Even if it succeeds. it will merely repeat the same vicious cycle. It will merely go from eager anticipation to severe disillusionment. The DPP refuses to comply with the Constitution of the Republic of China. It refuses to view it as the Republic of China "operating manual." Thefore how can it safely operate the car known as the Republic of China?

The key political problem on Taiwan, is deep-seated disagreement over national and constitutional allegiance. This has led to three serious consequences. One. As Frank Hsieh noted, given deep-seated disagreements over national and constitutional allegiance, how can we define ourselves when negotiating with Beijing? Can we really discard the Republic of China and replace it with a "Republic of Taiwan?" Two. Consider the political struggle is between the Republic of China and the "Nation of Taiwan." One side opposes the Republic of China and everything along with it. The other side opposes "Taiwan independence" and everything along with it. This undermines the national policy debate. On the surface it looks like a public policy debate. But below the surface, it is a life and death struggle over national and constitutional allegiance. This makes rational government impossible. This marginalizes national policy, reducing it to a phony issue. Rational political evolution becomes impossible. The nation and society spin their wheels. Three. This brings us back to Frank Hsieh's concerns. What's the point of quadrennial presidential elections? What is the point of democratic elections? The Blue and Green camps merely manipulate the public. They merely remain trapped in a vicious cycle.

View the matter calmly. The problems encountered by the Republic of China may have originated with the vehicle design. But the bigger issue is the driver. Some drivers utterly refuse to recognize the Republic of China, They operate the Republic of China as if it were a "Nation of Taiwan" instead. How can they possibly avoid wrecking the car? How can they possibly escape bodily injury? Frank Hsieh proposes a "constitutional consensus." Essentially he wants to use the ROC Constitution as the vehicle's operating manual. He wants the driver of the vehicle to assume responsibility, and not run the car off the road.

What Hsieh did not say was that the international community will never recognize a "Nation of Taiwan." A "Nation of Taiwan" can never become the constitutional consensus. Therefore the nation must reaffirm the Constitution of the Republic of China, its national title and its national flag. National and constitutional allegiance must converge. Only then will opposition to the Republic of China not mean opposition to everything. Only then will opposition to Taiwan independence not mean opposition to everything. Every driver of the ROC must view the ROC Constitution as his operating manual. Only then will the public be willing to consider another change in ruling parties. Only then will it be willing to change drivers. Only then will it escape its constitutional dilemma.

The Constitution of the Republic of China is its operating manual. The Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation. The future of cross-Strait relations will be determined in accordance with the constitutional procedures of the Republic of China, by 23 million citizens.
 
憲法就是中華民國的駕駛手冊
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.05.06 03:05 am

謝長廷在其新書《未來‧不一樣的台灣》中，用車禍比喻台灣政治。他說，車禍的原因有兩種可能性。一是駕駛的問題，一是車子的問題。他說，台灣的政治，光換駕駛不能解決問題。

謝長廷的新書，主題在探討國家認同與憲法認同。他問：每四年一次的總統大選，真能解決台灣的問題嗎？接著，他自答：民主選舉已經無法徹底解決台灣當前種種積弊與沉?……。政黨輪替，只是「輪替」了人民之間的彼此嘲弄、政治人物的推諉塞責，並未弭平社會裂痕。

不妨借用謝長廷的譬喻來探究台灣政治的癥結。首先，中華民國是一部構造殊異的車子，這是車子的問題；再者，每一位駕駛都對車子的構造有意見，有人甚至主張將之拆解改裝；而且，還曾出現台獨車手駕駛中華民國車子的情形，把中華民國當成台灣國來開，車子撞得支離破碎，車手也遍體鱗傷。因此，也就衍生了另一個問題：使得多數台灣人不再敢為國家換駕駛。

其實，中華民國這部車子的改裝改造從未停止，解嚴、國會全面改選、直選總統、訂頒「為因應國家統一前的需要」的增修憲法、推動「九二共識／一中各表」的憲政戰略……。這些，皆使「中華民國」這部車子有了重大變化；但是，不論如何改裝改造，中華民國畢竟仍有中華民國的基本架構，因而這部車子能否平順上路，也要看駕駛員的心態及條件如何。如果駕駛心中根本憎惡或否定這部車子，比如讓一名台獨的車手來駕中華民國的車子，那自然可能發生車毀人傷的場景。

謝長廷似乎是在向台獨車手發言。他用含含糊糊、極盡曲繞、欲言又止，甚至自相矛盾的語法，希望在綠營能夠建立一個「憲法共識」，認同這部「台灣的憲法」（也就是「中華民國憲法」），並從「面對中國時，都必須在中華民國憲法、國號、國旗之下，進行交流對話」做起；其實，謝長廷的潛台詞不啻即是：綠營應當先在中華民國憲法、國號、國旗下，與「台灣人民」進行交流對話。

謝長廷說，台灣的政治，光換駕駛不能解決問題。然而，他真正的憂慮其實是，台灣人民根本不敢換執政黨，亦即不敢用民進黨的車手；故民進黨的車手如果不調整心態，殆無可能登上中華民國的駕駛座，即使登上，也必進入「從『熱切期待』到『冷卻失落』的痛苦循環」。問題在於：如果不遵照中華民國憲法的「駕駛手冊」，如何安全駕駛中華民國這部車子？

台灣政治問題的癥結在國憲認同的嚴重分歧；這至少造成了三種嚴重後果。一、當國憲認同嚴重分裂至此地步，如謝長廷所問，我們要用什麼「自我認同」與北京政權「進行交流對話」？除了用「中華民國」，難道要用「台灣國」？二、由於國內政治鬥爭是建立在「中華民國」與「台灣國」的根本分歧上，一方因反對中華民國而反對一切，另一方則因反對「台獨」而反對一切；這使得其他的國政辯論，明裡像是在探討公共政策，暗裡其實卻仍是你死我活的國憲鬥爭，因而皆淪為邊緣化的「假議題」，遂使理性民主無由生長，國家社會陷於內耗空轉。三、這就又回到了謝長廷的憂慮：四年一次總統大選有什麼用？民主選舉有什麼用？只是陷於藍綠相互嘲弄、互相否定的惡性循環而已。

平情而言，中華民國的民主難題，固然出在車子的結構殊異，但更大的問題卻可指向駕駛。如果根本否定中華民國，把中華民國的車子當作台灣國來開，怎不落得車毀人傷？謝長廷倡議「憲法共識」，不啻是主張以中華民國憲法為「駕駛手冊」，回過頭來責成駕駛員的責任。

謝長廷沒有說出的是：「台灣國」不可能成為國憲認同的「共識」，因此必須回到「中華民國」的憲法、國號與國旗。唯當國憲認同能夠趨一趨同，台灣的民主政治，才不會陷於「為反對中華民國而反對一切，或為反對台獨而反對一切」的零和空轉；倘若每一位可能的駕駛都以中華民國憲法為「駕駛手冊」，我們就不至於陷於不敢換執政黨，不敢挑駕駛或不敢換駕駛的憲政困境之中。

中華民國憲法的「駕駛守則」是：中華民國是一主權獨立的國家，兩岸關係的未來由中華民國憲法程序決定，當然包括了由兩千三百萬人決定。