President Ma Ying-jeou: Teflon or Tyrant?

President Ma Ying-jeou: Teflon or Tyrant?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 7 2012

Summary: Some people say President Ma Ying-jeou is a Teflon president. They hope he will not "hang back from the front lines." Others accuse him of being a tyrant. They say he "sweats the small stuff." They say he cannot see the forest for the trees, and has all the vision of a section chief. These are two extreme characterizations. But are they really referring to the same person, to Ma Ying-jeou?

Full Text below:

Some people say President Ma Ying-jeou is a Teflon president. They hope he will not "hang back from the front lines." Others accuse him of being a tyrant. They say he "sweats the small stuff." They say he cannot see the forest for the trees, and has all the vision of a section chief. These are two extreme characterizations. But are they really referring to the same person, to Ma Ying-jeou?

President Ma first entered office in 2008. Not long afterwards, the "position himself on the front lines vs. retreat from the front lines" controversy erupted. The Legislative Yuan went its own way on Control Yuan, Examination Yuan appointments, and on the Sunshine Laws. Subsequent developments forced President Ma to return to the front lines. They forced him to assume the role of party chairman, and build bridges between the party and the administration. This four year long process can be evaluated from at least two perspectives.

One. The most fundamental issue is our constitutional framework. The current constitution stipulates that the Premier is the chief executive, and is answerable to the Legislative Yuan. The President must "retreat from the front lines." Otherwise he will usurp the authority of the Premier and the cabinet. But the voters elected the president through a direct vote. They expect him to assume full responsibility. The opposition parties set their sights on the presidency as their chief campaign goal. This process endlessly pushes all power and responsibility onto the presidency, leaving the President no room to "retreat from the front lines." President Ma wants to abide by dual-leadership system, but can't.

Two. The real problem is with the culture of democracy. To be fair, President Ma has demonstrated enormous restraint in the exercise of power. He hopes major decisions will be made through "democratic dialogue." But the democratic process is confrontational. It often leads to internal rebellion within the KMT. It often leads to opposition DPP incitement of social divisions. The real world consequence a ruling administration that in the eyes of the public has lost control. The US beef imports controversy is one example. The Ma administration's strategy is to "ensure a public forum." He hopes a public forum will enable experts to convince the people that US beef imports are harmless. He hopes this will affirm the legitimacy of his decision-making. But the public forum is already occupied by his opponents, inside and outside the party. They have already labeled the Ma administration "incompetent" and "a traitor to Taiwan." But this is democracy. Such developments are inevitable. Those in office must have the wisdom and ability avoid these pitfalls. They must not repeat the same mistakes. over and over again.

Allow us to summarize. One. A directly elected president cannot "retreat from the front lines." Never mind that the role of the president has departed from what is stipulated in the constitution. Two. Policies must be formulated and implement through the democratic process. But one must realize that confrontations will inevitably lead to chaos and to charges of "incompetence."

But if the President "must take a position on the front lines," how can we maintain the form and substance of the dual-leadership system? How can we uphold democracy while avoiding the chaos resulting from the democratic process, not to mention charges of "incompetence?"

The Ma administration says that peace begins at home. Electricity price hikes were actually imposed the day before they were announced. The five-member group reversed its decision and adopted a three-stage incremental rate hike. KMT legislators blasted the capital gains tax from day one. When time came to review the tax bill, they concocted their own version. The process revealed the fragmentation and chaos within the party. Some even took advantage of the occasion to engage in shameless self-promotion. The internal chaos encouraged and legitimized the opposition DPP's obstructionism. This chaos was not "intra-party democracy." It was merely incompetence.

Given the situation, some people want President Ma to "man up." In other words, to behave more tyrannically. But we believe he should instead increase democratic cooperation between the Presidential Office, the cabinet, the party, and the Legislative Yuan. For example, the five-member group must find a way to reach consensus. It must not air the party's dirty laundry in public. By the same token, the cabinet and the Legislative Yuan must consult with each other. They must ensure party/administration cooperation. The Secretary-General of the cabinet must not accuse ministers of ducking him. The administration and the ruling party must establish a democratic mechanism that does not air its laundry in public. Dissenting views must be thoroughly dealt with inhouse. Only then can they speak with one voice without.

In fact, the term "political policy" can be broken into two words, "political" and "policy." The term "political" may refer to a program. The term "policy" may refer to a method. The program should be conceived by a capable think-tank. It should subject the program to detailed evaluation. It should not flip-flop repeatedly. Only then can it offer a sound and convincing program. It must have a method or a technique. Only tnen can it sail through the democratic process, reduce resistance, and reach fruition. Take the gasoline and electricity price hikes and the capital gains tax. The programs were controversial. The methods to promote them were inept. Internal and external opposition and a hostile environment were coupled with a leader who flip-flopped repeatedly. The political policy failed, both as politics and as policy. The result was a mess.

This is practical politics. President Ma cannot be a Teflon president. And being a Teflon tyrant is not his style. He must promote a policy of democratic conflict management. He must prevent political turmoil from exacting an exorbitant social cost. Some accuse the administration of being incompetent. But they must acknowledge that democracy requires cooperation between the presdential office, the cabinet, the legislature, and the ruling party. This is what is meant by the expression, "peace begins at home."

馬總統是不沾鍋或獨裁者
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.06.07

有人指馬英九總統是不沾鍋，希望他不要「退居第二線」；有人則稱他是獨裁者，說他巨細躬親，不啻形同科長。這兩個極端，難道是指同一個馬英九嗎？

馬總統在二○○八年首任上台，不久即發生「第一線／第二線」的爭議；且立法院在監察院、考試院人事案及陽光法案等議事上也自有主張。後來的發展，如所共見的是，將馬總統逼回了「第一線」，且自兼黨主席以彌縫黨政脫節。四年多來，此一演化過程，至少可從兩方面評析：

一、最根本的問題在憲政體制。現行憲法以行政院長為最高行政首長，且對立法院負責；總統若不留有「退居第二線」的空間，則閣揆對內閣的領導統御即可能出現「架空」的問題。但是，選民概以直選總統為問責主體，反對黨又以直選總統為政爭對象，在這個過程中，不斷地將憲法上明明沒有的無所不包的權力及責任加諸總統身上，使總統全無「退居第二線」的餘地。馬總統想要遵行「雙首長制」，自無可能。

二、最實質的問題則在民主文化。持平而論，馬總統在權力操持上比較自制，亦希望重大決策能出自「民主討論」的過程；但是，民主程序的折衝過程，卻往往成為國民黨內「窩裡反」的戲台，及反對黨撕裂社會的槓桿，以致在實際政治效應上及社會認知上皆演成了主政者的失能失控。例如美牛案，馬政府所採的策略是「不毀鄉校」，希望在公共論壇上由專家帶領社會作出「巴劑牛肉無害」的共識，以建立決策的正當性；但是，這一舞台全被黨內外的反對者所佔據，馬政府則被貼上「無能」「賣台」的標籤。然而，既是民主政治，在過程中這些效應皆是難以避免，只是操持者須有趨吉避凶的智慧與能力，不能自蹈覆轍。

歸納上述評析，可得一綜合印象：一、直選總統沒有退居「第二線」的可能性，儘管此種變質的總統角色已經逾出憲法的規範；二、在政策的制定及推行上，必須通過民主程序，但也應知道，民主折衝的失序，會換來「無能」的罵名。

然而，倘若總統必須站上「第一線」，如何維持「雙首長制」的形式與實質？再者，如何一方面維持民主程序，另一方面又能避免民主程序顯露的混亂，以至被罵「無能」？

就馬政府言，根本之道在「攘外必先安內」。電費漲價，竟於執行日宣布後，在「五人小組」中翻案改採「三階段緩漲」；證所稅案，一路下來以黨籍立委罵得最兇最狠，到了審查當日還在拼湊黨內的版本。在這過程中，黨內的支離混亂暴露無遺，且有人尚以對中樞持異議來自我標榜；而內部的混亂，又助長並正當化了反對黨的挑戰，此種亂局不會被解讀為「黨內民主」，只會又回到那兩個字：「無能」。

在這樣的情勢中，有人希望馬總統「硬起來」，也就是希望他「獨裁」一些；但我們認為，反而應當強化「府／閣／黨／院」四者之間的民主協作。例如，必須設法落實「五人小組」的共議機制，而不要把其中的矛盾搬到外面去演給社會看；同理，內閣及立院之間的黨政協商也須有個深入的互動過程，而不應出現內閣秘書長指部長「不是路過就是來過」。亦即，政府及執政黨的內部必須建立一套有效且對外靜默的民主協作，透過內在機制使得相對意見充分折衝，然後就以一致的口徑對外。

其實，若將「政策」一詞，拆成「政」、「策」二字；「政」可指「方案」，「策」則指折衝的「方法」。「方案」應由強有力的智囊機制來產生，考量周延，端出去後不致搖擺反覆，即可較具說服力；而好的「方案」，亦須有好的折衝「方法」或「技巧」，始能在民主程序中增加助力、減少阻力，獲得實現。以此看油電雙漲及證所稅案，「方案」內容有爭議，折衝「方法」又拙劣，一旦陷於內憂外患、腹背受敵之境，再加上主帥態度搖擺反覆，「政」與「策」即告雙雙失敗，遂致難以收拾。

在現實政治中，馬總統不可能做「不沾鍋」，而「獨裁者」也不是馬總統的風格；他必須在推動政策的民主折衝中，讓人民不致因政局混亂及付出過大社會代價，而認為主政者「無能」，所以他至少必須先做好「府／閣／院／黨」內的民主協作。所謂「攘外必先安內」，斯之謂也。