The DPP is Becoming a Hollow Shell

The DPP is Becoming a Hollow Shell
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
January 29, 2014

Summary: The DPP faces a major crisis. It is becoming a hollow shell. Ko Wen-je refused to join the DPP. Tsai Ing-wen established cross-strait communications channels outside the framework of the party. These and other developments are all warning signs.

Full text below:

The DPP faces a major crisis. It is becoming a hollow shell. Ko Wen-je refused to join the DPP. Tsai Ing-wen established cross-strait communications channels outside the framework of the party. These and other developments are all warning signs.

Ko Wen-je refused to join the DPP. He thinks that if he runs for Taipei Mayor as a DPP candidate, he will not be able to attract non-Green Camp support. He went so far as to say that if he doesn't join the party before the election, he is not about to join the party after he is elected. This is Ko Wen-je's election strategy. He has retained his political momentum even after raising this controversy. The DPP may well be compelled to yield. This is a bizzare development worth watching. Ko Wen-je put down the DPP in order to elevate himself. The DPP could only sit and watch as Ko Wen-je heaped all manner of humiliation upon it. Ko Wen-je single-handedly overrode the nomination rules stipulated by the DPP party charter. He left the party stranded, high and dry. Is this not incredible?

Tsai Ing-wen is Ko Wen-je redux. In 2000, she became a Chen administration cabinet member, even though she was not a party member. In 2004, she became a DPP legislator without portfolio, then joined the party. In 2008, after only four years as a DPP party member, she was elected party chairman. Today she and Su Tseng-chang are locked in a battle for the 2016 DPP presidential nomination. She successfully demoted DPP Chairman Su's Huashan Conference "China Policy Summary Report" to a "China Policy Review Minutes." She dispatched a delegation from her Thinking Taiwan Foundation to the Mainland. Su Tseng-chang could not force Tsai Ing-wen to merge her cross-strait policy into official DPP cross-strait policy. Tsai Ing-wen, by contrast was able to establish her own "outside the party" policy agenda. Tsai Ing-wen ignored Su Tseng-chang and left the DPP party leadership stranded, high and dry.

Ko and Tsai have something in common. Both reject party strictures. Both have established their own power base outside party strictures, Ko Wen-je is running for Taipei Mayor. He takes pride in his refusal to join the party. The DPP, by contrast, finds itself led around by the nose. Tsai Ing-wen is running for president. She has established her own cross-strait communicaiton channel outside the DPP party framework. She intends to ignore the party framework. The party leadership can only grin and bear it. Consider these two cases. If this does not represent a hollowing out of the DPP party framework, what does?

Ko and Tsai have cast off the party framework. Yet consider the public reaction. People are applauding Ko and Tsai, and booing Chairman Su. This is the first time that DPP rebels have prevailed over the DPP leadership. Hsu Hsing-liang, Shi Ming-teh, and the Eleven Brigands were defeated. So why has the authority and legitimacy of the DPP been undermined to such a degree? Because the party leadership's core values and core interests no longer offer them an advantage. Therefore they have handed others the reigns of power.

The DPP party leadership has lost its authority and legitimacy. This is the result of a long-term erosion of moral authority, moral legitimacy, ideological credibility, policy credibility, and public trust. The Chen corruption case and the Ker Chien-ming influence peddling case have shown that the party no longer has any sense of shame. Ideologically, it clings to such arguments as "Taiwan must reach an internal consensus before it can engage in cross-strait dialogue," and "We are like seagulls on the beach." Policy-wise, it flip-flops from "ECFA undermines sovereignty and humiliates the nation" to "We accept ECFA unconditionally." The DPP held a "sleep-in" in the legislature over U.S. beef imports, then fell silent. The DPP has lost the public trust. With all that has happened, how could it not? Ko Wen-je rejected party strictures. Tsai Ing-wen ignored party strictures. The party was already a hollow shell.The two merely exposed that fact

The DPP acquiesced to Ko Wen-je's refusal to join the party. Alas, this will not remedy the situation. The DPP acquiesced to Tsai Ing-wen's end run around DPP strictures. Alas, this will not remedy the situation either. Ko refused to join the party. He was afraid the party would drag him down. Tsai Ing-wen ignored party strictures. She had two motives. One was to beat down Su Tseng-chang. The other was to bypass party strictures, since the party no longer had anything to contribute, at least not to cross-strait policy.

DPP support in southern Taiwan counties and municipalities remains solid. But this cannot hide its bankruptcy in morals, rhetoric, policy, and public trust. Ko Wen-je refused to join the party. Tsai Ing-wen bypassed the party. Their actions reveal the seriousness of the party's crisis. A major political party cannot even reach a consensus on cross-strait policy. The Taipei mayoral candidate endorsed by the DPP and the Green Camp obviously has the DPP's support. Yet the DPP is being forced to conceal its party identity behind an "Opposition Alliance" fig leaf. Does this not constitute a crisis for the party?

By DPP standards, Ko and Tsai have heterodox personal images and character traits. This has attracted public notice. The two are well versed in how to market their heterodoxy and attract non-Green Camp support. The DPP has chosen to swallow its pride and put up with this heterodoxy. But doing so will not address the DPP's bankruptcy in morals, rhetoric, policy, and public trust. Doing so will not restore trust and legitimacy in the party.

Ko Wen-je refused to become a party member. He even declared that if elected, he would not join the party. Tsai Ing-wen agreed that Ko need not join. But she cannot resign from the party. She may be able to perform an end run around Su Tseng-chang, But suppose she reclaims the party chairmanship? Suppose she becomes its presidential candidate? Can she really ignore the DPP completely? The fact is, she must rebuild the DPP's morals, rhetoric, policy, and public trust. Otherwise, in 2016, Tsai Ing-wen will merely reenact the debacle of 2012.

體制空洞化 民進黨危機
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.01.29 04:22 am

民進黨正面臨體制空洞化的重大危機。柯文哲拒入民進黨，與蔡英文在體制外另樹兩岸關係的旗幟，皆是顯著的徵兆。

柯文哲拒入民進黨，認為若以民進黨籍參加台北市長選舉，即不可能打破藍綠的界線；他甚至說，若選前不入黨，則即使當選後可能仍不入黨。柯文哲此計，固然是一種選舉謀略，但他在造成話題後仍能維持聲勢不墜，甚至竟迫使整個民進黨可能屈從於他，卻是一個值得深思的異象。柯文哲是以貶抑民進黨來抬高自己，而民進黨則坐視柯文哲羞辱民進黨卻仍必須百般將就；僅憑一個柯文哲，即能推翻黨章所定提名規範，甚至架空了整個民進黨的體制，豈不是匪夷所思？

蔡英文則是另一種形式的柯文哲。她於二○○○年以無黨籍身分進入扁政府內閣，再於二○○四年為取得不分區立委地位而加入民進黨，至二○○八當選民進黨主席時僅四年黨齡。此時，她與蘇貞昌陷於二○一六年總統候選人的提名之戰；因而將蘇主持的華山會議的「對中政策總結報告」降格為「檢討紀要」，她自己則大陣仗遣小英基金會登陸訪問。這一方面是因蘇貞昌沒有能力將蔡英文整合在黨中央的兩岸政策中，但相對而言，另一方面卻更彰顯了蔡英文藉貶抑黨體制來自樹一幟的政治意圖。此時的蔡英文，甩掉了蘇貞昌，也架空了黨中央。

柯蔡二人的共同點是抵制體制，在體制外另樹旗幟，另立門戶。欲競選台北市長的柯文哲，以拒入黨體制為榮，民進黨卻被他牽著鼻子走；欲競選總統的蔡英文，則在黨中央之外，另闢兩岸關係的蹊徑，也以甩開黨體制為得計，黨中央對她亦無可奈何。以柯蔡二人之例，這若不是民進黨體制的空洞化，什麼叫做空洞化？

柯蔡二人甩掉黨體制，然就社會反應來看，柯蔡的掌聲大而蘇主席的噓聲響；這是民進黨內首次出現「造反派」凌越「當權派」的政治異象（自許信良、施明德、十一寇，均是造反派敗陣），民進黨黨體制的權威性與正當性何以會空洞化到如此地步？這是因黨體制的當權派在掌握黨的核心價值及核心利益上已失優勢，以致太阿倒持。

今日民進黨中央黨體制之權威性及正當性的空洞化，其實是緣自長期的道德空洞化、論述空洞化、政策空洞化及信任空洞化。道德空洞化，從扁案及柯建銘關說案，可見已無廉恥可言；論述空洞化，至今仍停滯在「應該積極凝聚台灣內部的共識做為兩岸對話基礎」的階段，如何進行「海鷗與沙灘客」的對話？政策空洞化，ＥＣＦＡ從「喪權辱國」翻覆至「概括承受」，美牛案竟在立法院打了幾天地鋪後在鼾聲中消失；信任空洞化，則有了以上的空洞化，社會信任如何不空洞化？黨體制的權威性及正當性更如何不空洞化？而柯文哲的否定體制與蔡英文的甩開體制，可謂皆是鑽過這個已然存在的體制空洞罷了。

問題在於：柯文哲不肯入黨，並不能補救黨體制的空洞化；蔡英文架空了黨中央，也不能補救黨體制的空洞化。柯不入黨，是怕黨拖累了他；蔡英文架空黨體制，一方面是要壓倒蘇貞昌，另一方面亦是因在這樣的黨體制內，至少在兩岸政策上已經難有作為。

民進黨在南部縣市的磐石穩固，不能掩蓋其在道德、論述、政策、信任及黨體制上的空洞化。柯文哲的逃，及蔡英文的閃，皆只能反襯空洞化危機之深重。一個大黨，連兩岸政策亦無法在黨體制內獲得結論，連明明是由民進黨及綠營主力支持的台北市長候選人也要戴上「在野大聯盟」的假面具，這難道不是黨的危機？

柯蔡二人，皆是以個人的形象與人格特質在民進黨內屬於「非典」，而引得社會注目；且二人亦深諳如何以其「非典」特質，來吸引超溢綠營的選票。但此計雖可能贏得選舉，卻無可能補救民進黨在道德、論述、政策、信任及黨體制正當性上的空洞化危機。

柯文哲不入黨，甚至說若當選也不入黨。但是，蔡英文儘管贊同柯不入黨，自己則無可能退黨；今日她或有可能閃過蘇貞昌，但在她倘若復任黨主席或又成民進黨總統候選人後，還能甩掉民進黨嗎？如果不從道德、論述、政策、信任上再造民進黨，二○一六的蔡英文，恐怕又會步上二○一二的覆車之轍。