DPP: Reduced to Riding the Coat Tails of the Youth Corps

DPP: Reduced to Riding the Coat Tails of the Youth Corps
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 2, 2014

Summary: The DPP party princes attended the 3/30 anti-CSSTA protest. Su Tseng-chang, Tsai Ing-wen, Annette Lu, Yu Hsi-kuen, and Frank Hsieh showed up on Ketegelan Boulevard dressed in black. But all they did was stand on the sidelines. The Machiavellian DPP now confronts mistrust from the public without and ostracism from the Youth Corps within. It has waffled so long, it has a hard time distinguishing play acting from real life. This is where the DPP stands today.

Full text below:

The DPP party princes attended the 3/30 anti-CSSTA protest. Su Tseng-chang, Tsai Ing-wen, Annette Lu, Yu Hsi-kuen, and Frank Hsieh showed up on Ketegelan Boulevard dressed in black. But all they did was stand on the sidelines. DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang was heckled. "The DPP needs to get serious!" "Don't think only about the presidential election!" The scene revealed the DPP's inability to find a niche amidst the social protests. The scene also underscored the embarrassing fact that the DPP was being ordered about by the Youth Corps, rather than the other way around.

The two main leaders of the student movement share history with the DPP. Lin Fei-fan was a member of the Youth Corps at Tsai Ing-wen's campaign headquarters in Ilan. Chen Wei-ting was a member of the Youth Corp support group at Yang Chang-cheng's campaign headquarters in Miaoli. Their anti-CSSTA demands faithfully echo the DPP's long-held Sinophobia. But the student movement embarrassed more than the KMT. It embarrassed the DPP as well. The DPP was forced to quietly participate in the sit-in and be reduced to mere cheerleaders. This is something the DPP probably did not anticipate.

The DPP may have provided various forms of support from the sidelines or behind the scenes. But at least in terms of appearance, the student leaders consciously distanced themselves from the DPP. One could even say that the student movement succeeded precisely because it kept the DPP at arms length. This "tail wagging the dog" phenomenon was a factor in the Tai Pu incident, the Hung Chung-chiu incident, and other incidents. It reveals how rigid, opportunistic, and outdated the Democratic Progressive Party's political methods have become. It has lost the public trust. It has been ostracized by social movements. The Youth Corps has realized this for quite some time. The DPP however, remains oblivious.

Consider the first day of legislative proceedings following the two week long occupation. Green Camp legislator Chen Chi-mai attacked Blue Camp legislator Chang Ching-chung. He flung a glass of water at Chang while Chang was speaking. The student movement clashes have ended. But the DPP has yet to change its crude and unreasoning political style. This shows that the DPP is utterly oblivious to public perception. As we can see, the DPP has never felt the need to conduct itself in a manner befitting a democracy. It still assumes that its modus operandi has a market. But as we all know, the new generation is already tired of those tricks.

We need not exaggerate the accomplishments of the student movement. The students may have fresh faces. But rhetorically, they have not fallen far from the DPP tree. Their organization and mobilization relied heavily on support from the Green Camp. The biggest difference between the student-led mass movement and DPP-led mass movements, was that the students stressed public order. Except for the occupation of the Executive Yuan, their movement took place in an atmosphere of peace. Just imagine if the 3/30 Ketegelan Road protest had been led by the DPP? Would the crowd have peacefully disbanded by 7pm? Would the Black Shirts have clashed with the White Shirts? Judging by such standards, Chen Chi-mai demonstrated less self-control than the students. He behaved in a juvenile and risible manner. Is it any wonder the DPP meekly followed the lead of the Youth Corps on Ketegelan Boulevard? In fact, the Green Camp probably would not have been able to persuade nearly as many people to participate.

The student movement generated considerable momentum for the anti-CSSTA movement. But is this necessarily helpful to the DPP? We don't think so. Admittedly the Ma government's campaign has suffered a serious setback. It has been staggered and is in retreat. But any windfall for the DPP is likely to be limited. One might even say that when student demonstrators precipitated a showdown on the CSSTA, they exposed the DPP's cross-strait dilemma, and did them a disservice.

The DPP has long been forced to retreat on cross-strait policy. The DPP obdurately refuses to engage the Mainland. But the Chinese mainland has risen, and Taiwan's economic dependence on it has increase. Ever closer cross-strait relations are unavoidable. The DPP's Taiwan independence rhetoric is an inadequate response to a cross-strait relationship that is simultaneously confrontational and mutually dependent. DPP rhetoric makes meaningful consultations with Beijing impossible. If the DPP persists in its blind opposition to anything related to Mainland China, the Democratic Progressive Party will find it difficult receive enough popular support in the general election and take power.

Recently several DPP leaders have modified their cross- strait thinking. They have modified their rhetoric. They hope that the DPP will be able to play a meaningful role in cross-strait relations. Ironically, it was at this very moment that students resorted to extreme measures to challenge cross-strait policy, greatly shrinking the DPP's maneuvering room. Students on the street or on the Internet may be happy to distance themselves from Mainland China. They may be happy to take a different path, economically and politically. But can the DPP really follow in the students' footsteps? Would doing so really be politically advantageous?

This is the paradox of the student movement. On the surface, the students' stand is consistent with Green Camp thinking. It appears to have given the DPP added momentum. In fact the more extreme the students' demands, the more they stand in the way of DPP policy reform, and the more they push the DPP towards a Sinophobic vortex. The DPP may pay ritual lip service to the students demands on Ketegelan Boulevard. But once the students scatter, the DPP will have to bear the political cost of shattering the cross-strait status quo. On this point, American Institute in Taiwan Director David Brown has already burst the DPP's balloon. No wonder the Green Camp party princes were willing to sit on the sidelines and allow themselves to be ordered about by the students. That was their insurance policy.

The Machiavellian DPP now confronts mistrust from the public without and ostracism from the Youth Corps within. It has waffled so long, it has a hard time distinguishing play acting from real life. This is where the DPP stands today.

當民進黨只能在青年軍的場邊插花
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.04.02 03:55 am

三三○凱道反服貿活動，民進黨天王蘇蔡呂游謝皆穿著黑衣現身，卻只能在場邊插花表態。主席蘇貞昌更遭到民眾嗆聲：「民進黨要認真點！」「不要只想著選總統！」此一景象，不僅暴露民進黨在公民運動中找不到位置的尷尬，更凸顯了他們被青年軍「反領導」的窘境。

此次學運兩名主要領袖皆與民進黨素有淵源：林飛帆曾是蔡英文宜蘭競選總部青年軍，陳為廷則是楊長鎮苗栗競選總部青年後援會會長；他們的反服貿訴求，也如實呼應了民進黨一貫的反中立場。但在這場學運中，不僅國民黨被打得灰頭土臉，就連民進黨在場外靜坐、當啦啦隊的角色都深受約制，這恐怕是民進黨始料未及。

儘管民進黨透過各種形式在側翼或幕後支援，但至少在外觀上，學生領袖在運動過程中刻意與民進黨切割；甚至可以說，正因為做了高度切割，才能成功為學運造勢。這種「尾巴搖狗」的現象，在反大埔、洪仲丘等事件中反覆出現，也說明民進黨的反對角色因過於僵化、投機和老套，已完全失去民眾的信任，更遭公民運動排斥。這點事實，青年軍早已看穿，民進黨卻仍不自覺。

且看，在立法院被占領兩周後重新開會的首日，綠委陳其邁趁著藍軍立委張慶忠正在發言時上前偷襲，往他身上潑了一杯水。經過一場學運衝撞，民進黨依然不改其低級、無理的問政風格，恰恰說明民進黨對民意的毫無自覺。可見，民進黨從來不覺得自己對民主素質需要負什麼責任，甚至以為自己的杯葛慣技還有市場；殊不知，新生代已經煩透了這些老套。

我們不必過度高估這次學運的表現。除了學生的臉孔顯得相對清新，在論述上，他們的說詞和民進黨相去不遠；在組織動員上，他們相當倚賴綠營的各路支援。然而，學生和民進黨主導的群眾運動最大的不同，在於他們對公共秩序的強調，使運動控制在和平的氛圍下（攻占行政院行動除外），而得以持續。試想，如果三三○凱道行動由民進黨主導，群眾可能在七點多和平解散嗎？黑衫軍能不和白衫軍發生衝突嗎？從這個標準看，陳其邁的自制能力，比起學生，簡直是幼稚得可笑。這也難怪，民進黨這次在凱道上只能接受青年軍的領導，事實上，綠營恐怕也叫不動這麼多群眾站出來。

進一步問：學運創造了「反服貿」的大好聲勢，但這對民進黨問政有絕對助益嗎？只怕不然。不可否認，馬政府在此役確實遭遇重挫，踉蹌失措，節節失守；但民進黨能坐收的漁利，其實也相當有限。甚至可以說，當示威的學生把服貿爭議緊繃到攤牌的地步時，也正好暴露了民進黨在兩岸關係上的進退維谷，同時也幫了它倒忙。

民進黨在兩岸議題上素來退縮，一味強調不接觸；但隨著中國大陸的崛起及台灣在經濟上對大陸的依賴，兩岸關係愈趨緊密已勢無可免，民進黨既有的台獨論述不足以因應兩岸這種「既對立、又相依」的關係，更無從與北京進行有意義的溝通磋商。若不摘掉「逢中必反」的帽子，民進黨便很難在大選中獲得台灣民眾足夠的支持而取得政權。

就在近期，民進黨幾位領導人都正在積極調整自己的兩岸思維，試圖改變以往的論述，以期民進黨能在兩岸關係中扮演有意義的參與角色；此時學生用激烈手法挑戰兩岸議題，正好大大壓縮了民進黨調整轉型的空間。學生在街頭或網路上可以痛快地主張與中國切割，主張台灣在經濟上、政治上另覓出路；但是，民進黨有可能跟進學生的主張嗎？跟進的話，在政治上是有利的算計嗎？

這次學運的弔詭正在於此。表面上，學生主張與綠營的思維一致，似在幫民進黨拉抬聲勢；實質上，學生越是激越堅持，越是阻擋了民進黨調整轉型的出路，把它更推向反中的漩渦。在凱道上，民進黨可以跟著學生行禮如儀；但在學生散去後，民進黨卻得承擔打破兩岸關係現狀的政治代價。這點，美國在台協會理事卜道維已直接戳破民進黨的心機。也難怪，綠營天王甘願俯首坐在場邊接受學生指揮，因為那才是保險的策略。

權謀機詐如民進黨，今天面臨的是：外不受社會公民信任、內則遭青年軍冷落的局面。搖擺久了，竟連自己的虛實都有點分不清，這正是民進黨今天的寫照。