Su Tseng-chang must not force Frank Hsieh to operate outside the Party Framework

Su Tseng-chang must not force Frank Hsieh to operate outside the Party Framework
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 22, 2012

Summary: Has "Su/Hsieh cooperation" been shattered? That is no longer the issue. The real issue is whether the DPP is about to break up as a political party. For this Su Tseng-chang must bear primary responsibility. An October 18th editorial published by this newspaper urged Su Tseng-chang to lift the lid off a boiling pot, and allow the chloroform to boil off. Su Tseng-chang's current responsibility is to lift the lid. Who will be the chloroform boiled off? That depends on the party as a whole. The party chairman may not deprive the party of a major democratic debate over party reform.

Full Text below:

Has "Su/Hsieh cooperation" been shattered? That is no longer the issue. The real issue is whether the DPP is about to break up as a political party. For this Su Tseng-chang must bear primary responsibility.

Frank Hsieh has already crossed the Rubicon. He is not about to let matters rest. The situation is clear. Su Tseng-chang must allow Frank Hsieh to force a show down inside the party. Otherwise Hsieh will continue to promote his agenda outside the party. Su Tseng-chang is party chairman. He is a 2016 presidential contender. He has an unshirkable responsibility, both to himself and to the party. He must defuse the dispute over party reform from inside the party. He must not allow it to become a struggle between those inside the party and those outside the party. That would lead to the party breaking apart.

Frank Hsieh now stands on the great divide between the party and the outside world. He can take one step one way and find himself inside the party framework. Or he can take one step the other way, and find himself outside the party framework. One. Frank Hsieh has every right to expect Su Tseng-chang to deal with party reform from inside the party, in his capacity as DPP leader. After all, DPP reform is not Frank Hsieh's private agenda. The DPP and the public on Taiwan are also involved. Party Chairman Su Tseng-chang cannot refuse to deal with the most serious controversy pertaining to DPP reform since its founding as a political party. If Su Tseng-chang tackles the issue of party reform from within the party, then Frank Hsieh must remain inside the party. He cannot go outside the party.

But if Su Tseng-chang slams the door shut, and refuses to deal with party reform from within the party, Frank Hsieh will be forced to go outside the party. The two men will find themselves on different paths. One. Frank Hsieh said "The DPP will not break apart." But Hsieh staffers have already let it be known that if Su/Hsieh cooperation is shattered, Frank Hsieh's Taiwan Reform Foundation "has not ruled out going its own way." It would become an NGO promoting DPP/CCP exchanges. Meanwhile, Taiwan-oriented think tanks on the Chinese mainland have also responded. They say there is no reason not to hold DPP/CCP exchanges, with the Taiwan Reform Foundation taking the lead. Its desire to divide the DPP and incite conflict is all too clear. This path is of course outside the party framework.

Two. Suppose Su Tseng-chang forces Frank Hsieh to operate outside the party? Frank Hsieh and Tsai Ing-wen may well join forces. Add to this "DPP/CCP exchanges, with the Taiwan Reform Foundation taking the lead." The DPP would effectively end up with two suns to revolve around, two party leadership centers, and two cross-Strait policy paths. If this happens, those outside the party would oppose those inside the party. It would without a doubt lead to a breakup of the party.

One cannot place all the blame on Frank Hsieh. One cannot say he "forced the emperor to abdicate." This is a turning point in history. Party Chairman Su Tseng-chang must not refuse to reform the party from within. If he does, he will be evading his "destiny." The master switch is in Su Tseng-chang's hands. He can flick the switch one way -- inside the party. He can flick the switch the other way -- outside the party. It all hinges on his whim. On the 18th this newspaper published an editorial saying that Su Tseng-chang should not be bound by either the reform camp or the Taiwan independence camp. He should let go of all attachments. He should adopt a transcendent stance befitting the party chairman. He should adopt an attitude of noblesse oblige. He should enable the two sides to engage in democratic debate over party reform. He should even consider putting the issue to a democratic vote. Su Tseng-chang should act as a midwife. Intraparty democracy will determine whether the child is a boy or a girl. But he must not delude himself. He must not imagine he can shove the infant back into the womb. Su Tseng-chang can show that he is neither being forced to abdicate by the Hsieh faction, nor being hijacked by the Taiwan independence faction. This is how he can maintain a commanding position above the two rival factions with the party.

How else can Su Tseng-chang deal with Frank Hsieh? He can hardly allow himself to remain mired within this embarrassing dilemma, where he neither fights nor surrenders, neither joins with nor splits from Frank Hsieh. How much political capital can Su Tseng-chang afford to squander? Can the DPP avoid the risk that the party may break apart?

The problem has reached the point where one can neither advance nor retreat. The main reasons are the 2016 presidential election and longstanding grievances between Su, Tsai, and Hsieh. This is the situation they face. We would like to reiterate the appeal we made in our September 11th editorial, "Su, Tsai, and Hsieh Must Unite to Promote DPP Reform." The three should first draw up plans for party reform, then worry about the presidential election. They should work together to promote this difficult reform, within the party. They should not conflate the work of party reform with the presidential election and intraparty power struggles. Otherwise the result could be a lose/lose/lose proposition. The future of the DPP itself could be at risk. If reformers are forced to operate outside the party, Beijing will support the Taiwan Reform Foundation platform. The Taiwan Reform Foundation platform will join the Tsai/Hsieh alliance. The Tsai/Hsieh alliance will oppose Su Tseng-chang and the party leadership. The DPP will effectively end up with two suns to revolve around, two party leadership centers, and two cross-Strait policy paths. Can the DPP afford such a schism?

The DPP finds itself in a dilemma. It is on the verge of breaking apart. Party Chairman Su Tseng-chang must adopt a transcendent posture and champion intraparty democracy. He must begin a democratic dialogue. This will enable him to maintain his transcendent status. Otherwise Su Tseng-chang may go down in infamy as someone who suppressed intraparty democracy which led to the breakup of the party.

An October 18th editorial published by this newspaper urged Su Tseng-chang to lift the lid off a boiling pot, and allow the chloroform to boil off. Su Tseng-chang's current responsibility is to lift the lid. Who will be the chloroform boiled off? That depends on the party as a whole. The party chairman may not deprive the party of a major democratic debate over party reform.

蘇貞昌不可將謝長廷推到黨體制外
【聯合報╱社論】
012.10.22

就現今情勢發展來看，「蘇謝合」是否瀕於破局已屬小事，更大的問題尤在民進黨是否就此分裂。蘇貞昌應對此負主要的責任。

謝長廷已是過河卒子，不會善罷甘休。情勢顯示：蘇貞昌若不讓謝長廷在黨的體制內一決是非勝負，謝必然會在黨的體制外繼續推動他的既定方案。蘇貞昌作為黨主席，及作為二○一六年總統的角逐者，不論為己為黨，其無可迴避的責任，皆是必須將這場轉型爭議在黨的體制內化解，不可使之演成「體制外對抗體制內」的鬥爭，那就是黨的分裂。

謝長廷正站在體制內與體制外的分際線上，他可以走向體制內，也可以走到體制外。首先，謝長廷有足夠的正當理由，期望蘇貞昌的黨中央能在體制內處理此次轉型的論證；畢竟，這一次民進黨的轉型議題，並非謝長廷個人的節目，而是民進黨及整個台灣社會皆已捲入；因此，黨主席蘇貞昌根本沒有「權力」拒絕以黨體制來處理這個民進黨建黨以來最重大的轉型爭議。而蘇貞昌若在體制內發動轉型論證的機制，謝長廷自然必須回到體制內，不可在體制外另闢蹊徑。

但是，如果蘇貞昌關上了黨體制的大門，謝長廷或許就此走向體制外，且分兩途並進：一、雖然謝長廷說，「民進黨不會分裂」，但謝辦已放話，倘若「蘇謝合」破局，謝長廷的「維新基金會」不排除「自己做自己的」，成為「民共交流」的「民間平台」；於此同時，大陸涉台智囊亦回應，不妨「民共交流／維新先行」，其分化挑撥的心機昭然若揭。這條路，當然是體制外。

二、蘇貞昌若將謝長廷推出了黨體制，謝長廷與蔡英文的合流，即更加順理成章；如果再與前項「民共交流／維新先行」相互呼應，則屆時民進黨就不啻演成「兩個太陽／兩個黨中央／兩條兩岸路線」的態勢。勢若趨此，這不但是「體制外對抗體制內」之局，且已與分裂無異了。

這個局面，不能全怪謝長廷在「逼宮」；因為，黨主席蘇貞昌在這個歷史拐點上，若拒絕以黨體制來處理轉型論證，顯已違背其「天職」。大局的開關操在蘇貞昌手上，他可以把開關撥到「體制內」，也可以撥向「體制外」，完全繫於他的一念之間。如本報十八日社論所言，此時蘇貞昌不應被「轉型派」或「獨派」中的任何一派綁住，而應放空一切，真正站在「黨主席」的「超越」地位上，居高臨下，讓雙方就轉型論述充分進行民主辯論，甚至付諸民主投票；也就是說，蘇貞昌作產婆，生男生女交由黨的民主機制決定，而不要妄想把露頭的嬰兒塞回去。如此，蘇貞昌始能展現「不受謝派逼宮」，「也不受獨派挾持」的威儀，在黨體制內重新佔據超越兩派的制高點。

否則，蘇貞昌面對謝長廷，如果繼續陷於這種「不戰／不降／不和／不走」的窘態，蘇貞昌自己能有多少政治本錢禁得起如此折騰？而民進黨又如何避免分裂危機？

問題搞到如此進退維谷的地步，主要是因二○一六總統大選與「蘇蔡謝三人心結」的交纏所致。面對這個局面，我們仍願重申九月十一日社論「籲蘇蔡謝共赴民進黨轉型工程」的呼籲，三人皆應「先轉型大計／後總統大選」，共同努力在黨體制內一起度過這個轉型難關，勿將轉型工程與總統大選及權力鬥爭糾纏一處，否則就可能三敗俱傷，連民進黨的前景也一併賠上；倘若局勢轉向「體制外」，變成了北京支持「維新平台」，「維新平台」聯結「蔡謝聯盟」，「蔡謝聯盟」對抗「蘇貞昌的黨中央」，並形成「兩個太陽／兩個黨中央／兩條兩岸路線」，這種分裂的局面，民進黨承受得起嗎？

民進黨在這種相持不下、瀕臨分裂的危機中，黨主席蘇貞昌只有跳到「黨內民主」的高度上，打開「民主論證」的平台，始有可能維持其「超越」的地位。否則，蘇貞昌即可能使自己留下「壓制黨內民主／造成全黨分裂」的歷史罵名。

本報十八日社論建議蘇貞昌，打開沸騰的壺蓋，煮掉三氯甲烷。蘇貞昌在此時的責任是打開壺蓋，至於誰會是被煮掉的「三氯甲烷」，應當訴諸全黨的智慧，黨主席沒有權力剝奪全黨民主論證就轉型工程進行大辯論的權利。