Student Movement: Time for an Exit Strategy

Student Movement: Time for an Exit Strategy
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 31, 2014

Summary: Yesterday hundreds of thousands heeded the student movement call to march in protest of the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. Police estimate nearly 120,000 people marched on Ketegelan Boulevard. This was the largest mass movement on Taiwan in recent years. Different segments of society may have different evaluations of the protest march. But ultimately it will go down as an important moment in Taiwan's political history.

Full text below:

Yesterday hundreds of thousands heeded the student movement call to march in protest of the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services. Police estimate nearly 120,000 people marched on Ketegelan Boulevard. This was the largest mass movement on Taiwan in recent years. The large numbers resulted in a few minor incidents. But the student organizations lived up to their commitment. They concluded their activities at 7pm. They returned to the Legislative Yuan sit in site. This can be considered a rational and peaceful conclusion. Different segments of society may have different evaluations of the protest march. But ultimately it will go down as an important moment in Taiwan's political history.

Organizing a protest march and rally involving hundreds of thousands of people is no simple matter. The organizers and mobilizers of this large scale political event were novices -- young students. Many police officers have never encountered such a large-scale event. What's more, the event took place on Ketegelan Plaza, close to the Presidential Palace, a location even more sensitive than the Executive Yuan and the Legislative Yuan. The potential risks can only be imagined.

Fortunately, neither side wanted the event to degenerate and lead to conflict. As a result, they demonstraed considerable maturity and self-restraint. Student groups were loath to be branded a "mob." Therefore they swore nonviolence beforehand. Police did not want to be branded perpetrators of "state violence" merely for maintaining order. Therefore they declared in advance that they would use "kid gloves." As a result, the march ended peacefully. The efforts by both sides merit recognition.

The protest march has ended, but the deadlock persists. The student groups are loath to end their occupation of the Legislative Yuan. The DPP advocated withdrawing the agreement on trade in services, and reviewing it in committee. Faced with demands by the student movement, President Ma agreed to a dialogue mechanism. He agreed to support cross-strait legislative oversight mechanisms. He agreed to consider convening a citizens' constitutional conference. He has made so many concessions, he can retreat no further. Yet the student leaders are utterly unmoved. They apparently think they are in an excellent bargaining position. As a result, they are demanding even more than the DPP. They have declared that unless the cross strait agreement on trade in services is withdrawn, everything is off the table.

How did matters come to this? Now the dispute may be even more difficult to resolve. President Ma's popularity may be low. But he remains the legitimate head of state, elected by a democratic majority. Policies must be implemented. He is responsible to the electorate who voted for him, not to the students who occuped the legislature. Student groups may accuse President Ma of ignoring public criticism. They may express strong objections through marches and rallies. But in the end they must fall back on the system. The students may think of themselves as smart. They may think they understand the cross-strait agreement on trade in services. But in the end, they cannot bypass the system. They must operate in accordance with the legislative process. If the student movement insists on having its way, Taiwan will confront its most serious crisis ever.

This is most worrisome . The student movement gained the upper hand in the rhetorical battle from day one. But their demands became increasing absolutist. Their definition of "democracy" is their one-sided definition of democracy. Their definition of "dialogue" is their one-sided definition of dialogue. It is only dialogue if it results in what they demand. They occupied the halls of the legislature. They occupied the Executive Yuan. They destroyed public property, yet consider this reasonable behavior. Police evictions are invariably denounced as "state violence." They totally refuse to listen to dissenting opinions. Any expression of dissent on the Internet, is besieged or humiliated. The protest has reached a point where it may proceed down a path it once opposed.

Let us be blunt. The student movement leaders may have been wildly successful in achieving their demands. They may be highly effective in their mobilization skills. But sooner or later they must have an exit strategy. Suppose President Ma refuses to withdraw the cross strait agreement in trade in services? Do the students really intend to occupy the legislative yuan forever? True, they could launch a student strike, worker strike, or protest march once every week. Let the stock market plummet. Let political risk on Taiwan skyrocket. After all, if it all goes wrong, you can blame it on President Ma, right? Why didn't he listen to the student movement? But if you actually go down this path, you will drag down more than just the Ma government. You will drag down all of Taiwan.

A note to the student leaders. The excitement is over. Time to establish a stop-loss point. In 13 short days, you achieved what the DPP failed to achieve over eight or nine months. You successfully captured national media attention, even global media attention. You forced the ruling party to retreat, step by step. You forced President Ma to lower himself and seek dialogue. You even mobilized a successful rally. Your achievements rank up there alongside the Wild Lily and Wild Strawberry student movements. Whatever happens to the cross-strait agreement in trade in services, you have earned the respect of the public. The Sunflower student movement will go down in history.

Your next step must be to allow the legislature to do its job. You have unfinished studies that must be completed. One day your time will come.

社論－激情過後 學運該想如何退場
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2014年03月31日 04:10

在學運團體的號召下，數十萬的民眾（警方數字最多時近12萬人）昨日參與了上凱道反服貿的大遊行。這也是台灣近幾年罕見規模最大的群眾運動，儘管因為人數過多導致過程中出現若干零星的小擦撞，但學運團體最終也依先前承諾，在晚上七時左右結束了全部活動，回到被占領的立院，堪稱是理性平和的落幕。而無論各界事後將如何評價這場遊行，它終究是會在台灣的政治史上，記上重要的一筆！

操作一場數十萬人的集會與遊行，本來就不是樁容易的事，更何況這次籌畫與動員的主角，都是初次舉辦大型政治活動的年輕學生，而警方這邊也同樣是許久沒有遭遇過這般大規模運動，更何況這次活動的空間是比政院與立院還要敏感的總統府前凱道廣場，其間所蘊藏的不確定風險可想而知。

好在任何一方都不希望這場運動的訴求會因為衝突而變質，因而都表現了相當的成熟與自制。學生團體不願被冠上「暴民」，所以事前就揭示了非暴力行動守則，維持秩序的警方也不願再被冠上什麼「國家暴力」，早在事前就強調一切都要「軟處理」，因而這場遊行能夠平和的落幕，雙方的努力都值得肯定。

只不過，遊行落幕了，僵局卻依舊無解。學生團體仍然占領著立院不願撤出。對執政當局而言，除了先前接受民進黨所主張的將服貿法案退回委員會審查外，面對學運團體的訴求，馬總統不僅願意建立對話機制，更表達願意支持兩岸監督機制立法，也願意評估召開公民憲政會議的可能，可以說讓步到這樣，已經是退無可退了！然而面對馬總統的善意回應與呼籲，學運領袖們全不領情，似乎認為當下他們的形勢已一片大好，因而他們的要價甚至比民進黨還高，表態除了立即「退回服貿協議」外，其他都免談的地步。

形勢走到這一步，怕是會陷入更難解套的地步。要知道，就算馬總統的聲望再低落，他畢竟是合法多數選出的國家元首，政務還是要持續推動下去，他負責的對象是投票選他的選民，不是霸占國會議場的學生。學生團體可以批判馬總統不傾聽民意，可以透過集會遊行表達強烈訴求，但最終還得是要回歸到體制內去解決，學生們就算智慧再高，再懂服貿法案，終究還是不能越俎代庖、非得要立法機構依他們所訂定的標準答案去做為吧！真要這樣，那才是台灣最大的危機。

目前最令人擔憂的正是在這裡，儘管學運團體在話語權爭奪上一路取得了上風，但在訴求上卻也有愈來愈絕對化的傾向。他們所認為的「民主」，是依他們片面定義的才算民主，他們所認可的「對話」，是照他們所提示的答案做才叫對話，他們對占領議場、攻占政院、毀損公物等都自認是合理的行為，對警方的驅離則一律標示為「國家暴力」，他們根本不願傾聽不同的意見，任何在網路上表達不同意見者，不是被圍剿，就是被羞辱！當抗爭走到這一步，他們很可能會走向他們自己所反對的道途上。

講得再直白一些，不論學運團體的訴求多成功，集體動員的成效多卓著，最終總是得選個時機退場吧！難不成如果馬總統持續拒絕「退回服貿協議」，學生們就長期霸著立院抵死不退嗎？是的，確實還可以再發動罷課、罷工，每周遊行一次都可以，何不乾脆讓股匯市下跌，讓台灣政治風險升高，反正都可以歸罪給馬總統，不是嗎？誰叫他不聽我們學運團體的話呢？真要走到這一步，被拖跨的絕不只是馬政府，而是整個台灣！

寄語學運領袖們，激情過後，此時此刻是可以開始思考怎麼設停損點了！你們已經在短短的13天內，達成了民進黨8、9個月來都達不到的成就；你們已成功的贏得了全國輿論的關注，甚至是全球輿論的矚目；你們也已成功的讓執政黨一步步退讓，更讓馬總統低姿態的向你們尋求對話；你們甚而更成功的動員了一場成功的群眾集會。面對野百合乃至野草莓的學運前輩，你們的表現是毫不遜色的，未來不論服貿協議的前景會如何發展，你們已經贏得了許多人的尊敬，太陽花學運日後也是一定會載入史冊的。

接下來的工作，就交給國會去折衝吧，你們還有未竟的學業應完成，終有一天，你們的時代會登場的！