Student Movement: Beware of Becoming What You Denounce

Student Movement: Beware of Becoming What You Denounce
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 9, 2014

Summary: Week three will be a test for the student movement. We hope that upon emerging from the legislature their members will become more mature. We hope they will not replicate the dirty politics they themselves deplored. We hope they will not become replicas of the very people they criticized.

Full text below:

Wang Jin-pyng provided the student movement a bully pulpit. The student movement reciprocated by rolling out the red carpet. This is how the 3/18 student movement announced a peaceful conclusion to the protests. Many are relieved. Many others are worried. Why did this high profile student movement seem so familiar? Why did it exhibit so many of the same traits as realpolitik?

Conclusions about the 3/18 student movement may be premature. After all, the students have yet to actually vacate the premises. Also, the students have threatened to expand their protests into the community with a "May the Flowers Bloom" movement. What happens next remains to be seen. But overall student movement mobilization was successful and its public relations were impressive. The movement's impact on the CSSTA exceeded expectations. These are worthy of affirmation. More importantly, they allowed the younger generation to express its views on cross-strait issues. Their strong attitudes surprised the older generation.

But from another perspective, the student occupation of the legislature was illegal. The student leaders' manner of addressing government officials showed a lack of respect for others' dignity and equality. The manner in which they demanded that legislators sign a letter of consent was high-handed. The manner in which they called for public demonstrations of solidarity was flippant. The manner in which they demanded legislative approval of their "Articles for the Supervision of Cross-Strait Agreements" without question was self-righteous. It lacked any understanding of democracy and its manner of operation. These are faults that the young people who led or participated in the student movement, including those who merely stood on Ketegelan Boulevard, must contemplate.

Student movements invariably demand reform. This is why the 3/18 student movement has won respect. The public is willing to listen to young people. After alll, the government is obligated to build a better future for the next generation. It has a responsibility to amend existing policy. But respect for the protesters' right to free speech, does not mean endorsing everything they do. Still less does it mean that all the students' demands should be fulfilled unconditionally. If students are laboring under that sort of delusion, they have underestimated the complexity of a nation's operations.

The day student leaders announced they were withdrawing, other student movement members on the legislature floor opposed any sort of withdrawal. One radical member was so incensed he denounced the decision to withdraw as "black box operations," arrived at without public debate. He said any decision to withdraw should be subject to an "All Peoples' Forum." This brief interlude shattered the student movement's democratic pretensions.

The 3/18 student movement was ostensibly a protest against the ruling KMT's "black box operations" vis a vis the CSSTA. Consider the epithet "black box operations." It is such a self-righteous slogan. But a mere three weeks later, a dispute over whether to withdraw has resulted in the "black box operations" epithet directed at student leaders by their own comrades. This boomerang effect confirms that critics must also accept criticism. The students should be feeling the sting by now.

Should the students withdraw? Is there any way to hold an "All Peoples Forum" before making a decision, as one dissident demanded? Of course not. Where are "all the people" amidst this mass movement? For 20 odd days, the student movement protest site has brimmed over with such sloganeering. The students held a "People's Assembly" in the Legislative Yuan. Chen Ting boasted, "We are the masters of this island!" Lin Fei-fan shouted, "President Ma, obey The Peoples' commands." The crowd has made the term "The People" sacrosanct. These "commanders" have designated themselves the personification of "The People." But they simultaneously ground elected heads of state and elected representatives underfoot. For democracy, the scene was contradictory, ironic, and absurd.

The student movement experienced three schisms. Schism One. The hawks and the doves clashed. The result was the violent occupation of the Executive Yuan. Schism Two. The elites and the unwashed clashed amidst a class struggle. The result was an "Untouchables Liberation Zone." Schism Three. Differences over whether to withdraw may have led to the "May the Flowers Bloom" compromise. These differences and disputes were not necessarily bad. They may at least prompt key members of the student movement to reflect upon the need for organization and communications. From the outside, this marks the inevitable tarnishing of the student movement halo. Political movements, after all, are merely temporary means of mobilization. They are not the norm. Therefore three weeks is long enough for the sanctimonius, imperious student movement to reach the end of their rope.

We admire the student movement's organization, mobilization, public relations, and maintainence of order. The younger generation made full use of its advantages. But the student movement's violent occupation of public buildings, supercilious rhetoric, and blanket rejection of dissent, are hard to countenance. In particular, the student leaders blindly demonized the officials who signed the CSSTA. Yet they gave the ruling and opposition legislators who failed to review the bill a free pass. Privately, they engaged in under the table transactions through go-betweens. This is probably the the student movement's mos serious blind spot and failure. 

Week three will be a test for the student movement. We hope that upon emerging from the legislature their members will become more mature. We hope they will not replicate the dirty politics they themselves deplored. We hope they will not become replicas of the very people they criticized.

學運慎勿淪為自己批評對象的翻版
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.04.09 04:48 am

王金平幫學生搭起了下台階，學生為王金平鋪上了紅地毯，三一八學運以這樣的方式宣布和平收場，讓許多人鬆了一口氣。但與此同時，不少人恐怕也因此感到憂心：一場轟轟烈烈的學生運動，為何許多地方看起來如此眼熟，甚至複製了現實政治？

現在就要對三一八學運作出總結，或嫌太早；畢竟，學生尚未真正撤離，而且學生揚言未來將走入社會「遍地開花」持續運動，後勢仍有待觀察。但整體而言，學運在組織動員上是成功的，在宣傳整合上是令人刮目相看的，在反服貿抗爭上收到了超乎預期的效果；這些，都是值得正面看待的部分。更重要的是，他們表達了年輕世代對兩岸議題的不同聲音，其態度之強烈，是上一代所始料未及。

但從另一方面看，學生們占領國會議場的手段是非法的，他們要求政府官員對話的方式缺乏尊重與對等的教養，他們要求立委簽署同意書的動作流於霸道，他們呼喚群眾前來聲援的態度過嫌輕率，他們要求國會直接接受所謂民間版《兩岸協議監督條例》則顯得自以為是，缺乏民主和體制運作的概念。這些，是所有領導或參與此次學運，乃至只是在凱道或網路上表態的年輕人，必須省思的事。

任何學運都帶有呼籲改革的本質，這是三一八學運受到重視及珍惜的原因。社會大眾願意聆聽年輕人的聲音，是因為國家有義務為下一代建構更美好的前景，也有責任修正既有政策的偏差。然而，包容或尊重示威者的發言權，並不表示承認他們的一切行徑合理，更不意味學生的所有要求都應該被無條件答應；學生若有那樣的執念，就未免太小看了一個國家運作的精密及複雜程度。

觀察宣布退場那天的情況，議場內顯然有其他成員反對撤出。一名激進者甚至激動怒罵退場的決定是「黑箱作業」，未經公開討論；他並說，要退場，應該經過「全民討論」才行。短短的一幕，便戳破了學運自身披掛的民主表相。

試想，三一八學運的發動，是因反對執政黨服貿協議的「黑箱作業」而起；這「黑箱」二字，喊得多麼義正詞嚴。但也不過三周的時光，這張「黑箱」的標籤，只因為退場之爭，便由同志貼回了學運領袖身上。這種「回力棒」效應，證明批評者也須接受批評，學生不該一無感受吧！

再說，學生要不要撤退，有沒有辦法像那名異議者所提的那樣，先經過「全民討論」再作決定？當然不可能！群眾運動的現場，全民在哪裡？然而，這廿多天來，學運場上充斥著這個全稱式的字眼，學生在議場召開「人民會議」，陳為廷宣稱：「我們才是這個島嶼的主人！」林飛帆高呼：「馬總統，請你接受人民指揮。」在學運場上，群眾可以把「人民」喊得那麼神聖，指揮者可以把自己膨脹成人民的化身，卻同時又把經選舉產生的國家元首和代議士踩在腳下；這一幕，是矛盾，也是反諷，更是民主的荒謬。

這次學運歷經三次分裂：第一次，是鷹派與鴿派的路線之爭，結果產生了攻占行政院的暴衝事件；第二次，是菁英與賤民的階級之爭，因此有了「賤民解放區」的論壇設置；第三次，則是撤離議場與否的意見分歧，所以才會有「遍地開花」的妥協。這些歧見與爭執，未必全是壞事，至少促使學運核心成員反省組織及溝通的方式。而從外界看來，這也是學運光環殞落的必然過程，運動畢竟只是社會動員的暫時形式，而不是常態；於是，僅僅三週也夠讓神聖、銳氣逼人的學運圖窮匕現了。

對這次學運的組織、動員、宣傳和秩序，我們深感佩服，年輕的一代充分運用了他們的優勢。但對於這次學運的占領手段、霸道的論述方式、對異議者的一味否定，則讓人難以苟同。尤其，學運領袖一味醜化行政部門簽訂服貿協議的用心，對於朝野立委不認真審議的作為卻不以為意，而私下又和某些「黑手」進行交易，這恐怕是此次學運最大的盲點與敗筆。

這三周的運動對學生是一場試煉，我們期待，走出議場能使他們變得更成熟，切勿複製自己聲言不齒的政治伎倆，更勿變成自己批評對象的翻版。