Can the Legislative Yuan Show Chen Guangcheng the Virtues of Democracy?

Can the Legislative Yuan Show Chen Guangcheng the Virtues of Democracy?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 25, 2013

Summary: Mainland Chinese human rights lawyer Chen Guangcheng is currently visiting Taiwan. He said he wanted to experience the "virtues of democracy" on Taiwan. He will deliver a speech today in the Legislative Yuan. Chen Guangcheng may witness name-calling and physical violence during the extraordinary legislative session. If he does, he must understand that these are part and parcel of the "virtues of democracy" on Taiwan.

Full Text below:

Mainland Chinese human rights lawyer Chen Guangcheng is currently visiting Taiwan. He said he wanted to experience the "virtues of democracy" on Taiwan. He will deliver a speech today in the Legislative Yuan. Chen Guangcheng may witness name-calling and physical violence during the extraordinary legislative session. If he does, he must understand that these are part and parcel of the "virtues of democracy" on Taiwan.

People arriving from a totalitarian state are envious of democratically-elected legislatures and the right to dissent. The public on Taiwan once felt the same way. But 20 years later, the public on Taiwan wants answers to a number of questions. For example, can a democratically-elected legislature ensure the rule of law that the era we inhabit requires? Will dissent prevail to the extent that society loses its ability to reach consensus? Will the nation grind to a halt as a consequence? If so, what then? Chen Guangcheng may be able to ask these questions in the legislature today. He may be able to ask why legislators cannot settle down and review bills during regular sessions. Why must they call for extraordinary sessions? Why must the legislative process be dragged out even then?

The extaordinary legislative session is about to adjourn. The ruling party initally sought passage of the capital gains tax, 12 year compulsory education, public bonds, and the referendum on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. But the opposition DPP was unhappy with the cross-Strait GATS agreement. This could impact the third reading. The bills may not be resolved until a second extraordinary session is called. The slightest dissatisfaction can impact the passage any bill. The slightest mood swing can lead to yet another round of ruling vs. opposition party confrontation, This has been commonplace for years. Anything that can be put off and delayed, will be. Nothing is ever dealt with on its own merits. In principle, democracy involves "checks and balances." But on Taiwan, all we have are checks, and no balances.

Checks differ from balances. Several examples underscore the difference. Recently the private sector expressed doubts about the GATS agreement. Before that, opposition legislators never gave the matter a second thought. They devoted all their energy to obstructing the establishment of cross-Strait representative offices. They even occupied the Legislative Chamber and held a slumber party. But as soon as some in the private sector began grumbling about the GATS agreement, ruing and opposition party legislators immediately latched on to this new political football. The establishment of cross-Strait representative offices suddenly became yesterday's news. And so it was for 12 year compulsory education. The DPP initially demanded a "wealthy exclusion" clause. But once the Executive Yuan heeded outside recommendations and agreed to incorporate a wealthy exclusion clause, the opposition DPP immediately adopted precisely the opposite position. It then began accusing the Ma government of acting in bad faith.

Simply put, "checks" is nothing more than proclaiming one's opposition and engaging in irrational obstructionism. By contrast, "balances" obligates one to offer alternatives. It calls for a third way that transcends differences. If democracy involves only "checks," and no "balances," politics will inevitably proceed down a blind alley. People will lose their faith in democracy and its values.

Take the referendum on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. The public has been arguing over whether to complete or to halt construction on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant for years. The ruling party has a responsibility to finish building the plant. But it also faces powerful public opposition to nuclear power generation. Under the circumstances, a referendum is probably the only solution to the problem. The DPP halted then resumed construction on the plant, incurring tens of billions of dollars in additional costs. Now that the nuclear power plant has been completed, the DPP has once again adopted an anti-nuclear stance. What's even more astonishing, it now vehemently opposes any referendum on the plant. It opposes the plant, but simultaneously refuses to allow the public to express its views on the plant by means of a public referendum. Under these circumstances, how can any resolution be reached on the plant controversy?

The Legislature lacks any sense of responsibility for problem solving. The Executive, meanwhile, is inept at both communication and coordination. These are additional reasons why Taiwan's democracy has fallen and cannot get up. Take negotiations between Taipei and Manila over the fishing vessel shooting incident. Premier Chiang embarrassed Foreign Minister Lin Yong-le. This was followed by controversy over the accounting law bill. President Ma put the Executive Yuan on the spot. Controversy raged over the "wealthy exclusion" clause in the 12 year compulsory education bill. This led to the Premier giving Education Minister Chian Wei-ning a slap in the face. Every one of these events leave one flabbergasted. Policy can be changed. Policy can be modified. But the government must improve internal communications. It must coordinate with the legislature. This will prevent higher level authorities from pulling the rug out from under lower level authorities. This will prevent the executive branch from singing a different tune than the legislative branch.

Frankly, many no longer care what bill the extraordinary session of legislature passes today. People no longer expect any professionalism or sense of mission from legislators. Ruling and opposition party legislators pretend to engage in consultations. Legislative caucuses issue this or that level mobilization order. In reality, they are merely furthering their personal or partisan interests in the name of democracy. Who really believes that these legislators are actually concerned about the public on Taiwan?

If Chen Guangcheng sees only these political calculations and this sort of coarse behavior in the Legislative Yuan, he must not be too disappointed. After all, they are merely isolated facets of Taiwan's political system. The virtues of Taiwan's democracy are not imaginary. One must evaluate all of its aspects, large and small. Chen Guangchen is smart. He should have no difficulty understanding the complexities.
  
立院能讓陳光誠看到民主的美好？
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.06.25 01:56 am

中國維權律師陳光誠訪台，談到他想要體驗台灣「民主的美好」，並將於今天在立法院禮堂發表演講。如果陳光誠剛好看到國會臨時會上演謾罵拉扯的大戲，很抱歉，他必須理解，那其實稱不上是台灣民主「美好」的部分。

從極權國家來的人，一定很羨慕民主選舉的國會和表達異議的自由；對台灣人而言，當年確實也有過同樣的心情。但經過廿多年，台灣人民今天更想知道的是：民主選舉的國會若訂不出合於時代需要的法制，異議氾濫到使社會失去凝聚共識的能力，當國家因此停滯，那該怎麼辦？陳光誠今天也許可以向立委提出這個問題，並問問他們：為什麼正式會期中不好好審查法案，到了臨時會也還在推拖拉？

立院臨時會已進入尾聲，執政黨原本期待通過證所稅修正、十二年國教、公債法、核四公投等案，但適逢兩岸服貿協議引發在野黨不滿，可能連帶衝擊既定法案的三讀；那麼，所有的法案恐怕只好再留待第二次臨時會去解決。任何不滿，都可以折射到每一項法案身上；任何情緒，都可以牽動朝野的對立硝煙，這是台灣多年來司空見慣的政治景象：凡事能牽拖就牽拖，絕不就事論事。亦即，就民主政治的「制衡」原理而言，台灣只學到「制」，卻從未學到「衡」。

「制」與「衡」的差異，可從最近的幾個例子看出。在民間業者對服貿協議爆出質疑之前，在野黨立委幾乎不把這項協議當一回事，而是全力放在杯葛「兩岸互設辦事處」議題上，甚至為此霸占了立院議事廳。然而，一俟聽見若干業者發出怨言，朝野立委馬上撲身跳到新的議題上面，把互設辦事處問題棄如雞肋。這和十二年國教一樣，民進黨原先也持「排富」的主張，但一旦行政院聽取外界建議同意排富之議，在野黨馬上又跳到相反的立場，開始指責馬政府言而無信。

簡單地說，「制」只是在宣示反對者的意見，且一味死守杯葛立場；而「衡」則需要進一步提出不同看法，從彼此的差異之中走出第三條路。民主如果只有「制」，而不追求「衡」，那麼政治將不免卡在死胡同，而民主也將因失去信念和價值而變得錯亂與虛無。

以核四公投為例，社會各界對核四存廢爭議多年，執政黨一方面有責任繼續興建，一方面又面臨民間強大的反核力量；在這種情況下，訴諸公投恐怕是最後解決之計。矛盾的是，民進黨執政時曾停建核四又復工，且追加數百億經費，如今核四完工在即民進黨又轉向反核；不僅如此，竟連核四公投案也大力杯葛。如此，既要反核四，又不讓民意有公投表達的機會，究竟要核四伊於胡底？

相對於立法院缺乏解決問題的責任感，行政部門的拙於溝通及怠於協調，也是台灣民主顛躓失能的另一主因。且看，在台菲為漁船射擊事件談判時，江揆給了外長林永樂一個大難堪；接著在會計法覆議爭議中，馬總統賞了行政院一個大悶鍋；最近的國教排富，則又是閣揆給了教長蔣偉寧一個耳光；凡此，無不令人瞠目結舌。這並不是說政策不能中途轉彎或進行修改，然而，如果政府內部的溝通能提前進行，與國會的協調能夠早一步到位，那麼，上級部門打下級部門耳光、立法部門唱行政部門反調的情事何致一再發生？

老實說，今天立法院臨時會要通過什麼法案或不通過什麼法案，許多人其實已不在乎。畢竟，人們對於立委專業化及使命感的期待，近幾年已逐漸降到不抱希望的地步。朝野立委還在那裡假裝煞有介事的協商，黨團還在那裡發動什麼甲級動員令，只顯示他們打著民主的招牌在那裡進行黨派或個人的利益交換，誰相信他們的心裡真惦記著台灣或人民？

若只看到立法院的算計和粗魯，陳光誠其實也不必太失望，畢竟那只是台灣政治體制的一隅。台灣民主的美好，並非傳說；只是，那得在大大小小的事情中細細尋思品嘗。以陳光誠的聰明，應不難洞燭其奧。