From Political Posturing to Problem Solving

From Political Posturing to Problem Solving
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 8, 2012

Summary: Taiwan's democracy is long past the stage of slaying dragons. If politics is to progress, we must get off our high horse. We must use everyday wisdom to solve our problems. The time for political posturing is past. The time for problem solving is here.

Full Text below:

The National Communications Commission (NCC) includes seven commissioners. Three of them hold dissenting views on certain media acquisitions, and have demanded to be recused. Among the other four members, two are under mounting pressure to resign. This has prevented the commission from functioning normally. The NCC is the competent authority for the communications industry. Problems like these have compromised NCC operations. The impact on the quality of the television media on Taiwan can easily be imagined.

The problem is not that individual commission members cannot agree on how to review individual cases. The problem is that a seven member independent commission cannot reach a joint resolution simply by following the law.  Instead, its members play procedural games. They engage in obstructionism and procrastination. This problem is not unique to the NCC. Politics on Taiwan is all about Blue vs. Green. This is now "normal." People are often forced to choose sides. They are forced to declare who they are and where they stand. Two years ago, executives of the Taiwan Broadcasting System found themselves in a stand off. They filed suit against one other. Several days ago, a member of the Executive Yuan Technical Advisory Group for US Beef Imports threatened to quit. These are all results of this political climate.

Political posturing is now the rage. That means rational debate is out of fashion. The reason is the emphasis on "taking a stand." Political posturing is a way to avoid rational debate, even crush dissent. Dissenting views can no longer be expressed. Ultimately it becomes impossible to arrive at rational solutions.

Worst of all, the poseur sees himself as holier than thou. He reduces complex issues to simplistic declarations of "with us" or "against us." This grossly oversimplifies issues. This makes it impossible to contemplate issues in greater depth and breadth. It is akin to demanding true or false answers when issues require multiple choice answers or essay style answers. It prevents clear thinking. It precludes correct answers. In terms of procedure, it contradicts the spirit of democracy. In terms of results, it impedes rational decision making,

Consider the Clenbuterol controversy. Choosing to "defend the health of the nation" is of course the safest short cut to the moral high ground. If one wishes to adopt a zero tolerance policy, then the matter can simply be finalized by the politicians. Why invite experts to provide reasoned advice? Consider media acquisitions. Three members of the commission dissented. They could have raised objections. Instead, they refused to review the case. They blamed the other four members. Meanwhile, they evaded responsibility. Was this fair to the other four members? An independent commission consisting of only seven members could not reach a consensus. Instead, members rushed to apply labels to each other. The political climate is positively McCarthyite. Under these circumstances, expecting 23 million people to unite behind a "Taiwan consensus" is a pipe dream.

The result should be obvious to all. In recent years, rational discussion on Taiwan has become impossible. We have also experienced a massive brain drain. We no longer have  public-minded intellectuals and fair-minded experts and scholars. Make no mistake. The experts and scholars have not defected to the Blue and Green camps. Rather the political climate on Taiwan has degenerated into one in which "you are either with us, or against us." Opinion leaders are tarred with a broad brush. Anyone who ever sided with the Blue Camp on any issue, is immediately tarred as an "apologist for the Blue Camp" by the Green Camp. He is immediately shunned as a pariah. And vice versa. Over time, every expert and scholar has been indelibly tarred with a broad brush. All they can do after that is watch from the sidelines, and hope they are not dragged into the mosh pit. Under these circumstances, the public no longer knows who is objective and neutral. Whenever a major dispute arises, the only thing they have left is the empty promises of populist demagogues.

Taiwan has marched down the path of democracy for over 20 years. It has now fallen into this "if you're not Green then you're Blue" quagmire, This is a major setback for democracy. The public must no longer be swayed by populist demagogues who make pious appeals to sentimentality. Otherwise our once proud civil society will be doomed to failure. Scan the comments section at any Internet news site. It will be inundated, to an alarming degree, with extremist bigotry, arrogant presumption, and ignorant ranting. Is this rage and emotionalism what our political tradition has bequeathed the new generation of Netizens? If so, how can Taiwan expect a better tomorrow?

To re-establish a climate necessary for rational debate is not that difficult. We need merely eschew political posturing. We need merely get back on track. We need merely call a spade a spade. We need merely reclaim our civil society. We will then be close to our goal. We have over 20 years of experience with democracy. We know Rome was not built in a day. If the problems at hand have no perfect solutions, then we must tackle them one at a time. We need time to solve our problems. As long as today is a little better than yesterday, that is progress. That is surely better than adopting a holier than thou attitude. Such an attitude merely makes progress even more difficult.

Taiwan's democracy is long past the stage of slaying dragons. If politics is to progress, we must get off our high horse. We must use everyday wisdom to solve our problems. The time for political posturing is past. The time for problem solving is here.

從「表態模式」走向「解決模式」
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.05.08 02:48 am

《台灣政治文化省思系列四》

國家通訊傳播委員會（ＮＣＣ）共有七名委員，其中三人對某項媒體購併案有不同意見而申請「迴避審查」，另四名委員又有兩人近日因不堪壓力請辭，已影響委員會的正常運作。作為全國通訊傳播產業的主管機關，ＮＣＣ運作如此乖違，台灣電視傳媒品質江河日下也就可想而知。

值得注意的，其實不是個別委員對不同審查案的意見如何，而是一個區區七人的獨立委員會，卻無法透過思辨激盪依法作出共同決議，而陷入程序操作的杯葛及拖延。但這也並非ＮＣＣ特有的問題，這是台灣政治被切割成「非藍即綠」後，逐漸形成的一種「表態文化」；人們常常被迫要在衝突的意見中「選邊」，宣示自己的類別與立場。包括前兩年公廣領導階層的對立互控，日前行政院美牛技術諮詢小組成員揚言退出，都是這類表態文化的產物。

相對於「表態文化」的流行，也意味著我們的「討論文化」在退化。原因是，強調表態，在某種程度上就是企圖以類別立場來引導討論，甚至壓抑其他的不同意見。其結果，可能使不同的意見無法充分表達，致最終無法作出最合理的選擇。

尤其惡劣的是，這種類別表態者往往也自視為道德表態，通常在凸顯「是」或「非」的單面價值，對於面向比較複雜的議題，就很容易造成觀點的簡化，而無法在不同的縱深或廣袤上作綜合考量。試想，這就好像用解答「是非題」的方式來處理「選擇題」或「問答題」，不僅妨礙思考，又如何能得到好答案？就過程而言，這更不合乎民主精神；就結果而言，這不合乎理性選擇原則。

以瘦肉精議題為例，選擇堅持「捍衛全民健康」，當然是最安全而討巧的道德立場；但若要堅持零檢出，此事由政治人物拍板即可，何需邀集專家提供意見？再以媒體購併案為例，三名委員若不支持，大可提出反對意見；但採取拒審，無異把責任完全推到另四名委員身上，自己卻迴避了事，這對另四人又豈公平？試想，若連七個人的獨立委員會都無法取得共識，那麼，以台灣動不動就扣帽子、貼標籤的氣氛，若說兩千三百萬人要凝聚「台灣共識」，豈非癡人說夢？

大家應不難注意到，近年台灣流失的不止是理性討論的氣氛，同時也大量流失了公共知識分子及中立的專家學者。這並不是說專家學者分別投效了藍綠陣營，而是台灣政治上那種「非友即敵」的肅殺氣氛，一直在對意見領袖進行潑漆染色，曾在某一議題上支持過藍營的人，立即被綠營貼上藍色標籤，列為拒絕往來戶，反之亦然。久而久之，專家學者都被政治標籤釘死，或者只能遠遠站在外圍保持旁觀，以免遭到池魚之殃。在這種情況下，社會大眾再也不知道該相信誰是客觀、誰是中立，一遇上重大爭議，只能聽憑民粹政客在那裡信口雌黃了。

台灣走過廿多年的民主道路，如今陷入「非藍即綠」的泥淖，這是民主的一大挫折。在這種情況下，若民眾的思辨模式再被拘限於粗糙濫情的表態文化，那麼連我們曾經引以為傲的「公民社會」，恐怕也將一敗塗地。如果留意網路新聞的留言，各種偏激、仇恨、自大、卻不知所云的意見，充斥到令人驚訝的地步；政治若只能留給新世代網民這種嫉憤情緒，台灣如何走向更好的未來？

要重新建立台灣的「討論文化」，其實不難；揚棄表態文化，回到「公民初步」的常軌就事論事，便庶幾乎不遠矣。有過廿多年的民主經驗，大家都知道人間沒有一步登天的事，眼前的問題若找不到「完美方案」，就一步一步來，一次解決一些問題，只要今天比昨天更好一點，就算進步。這絕對比在那裡唱道德高調、卻寸步難移的好。

台灣的民主，早已過了斬妖除魔階段；政治如果要再進化，有些事必須從神桌上拿下來，用人間的智慧來解決。「表態模式」已經圖窮匕現，請向「解決模式」進化吧！