The Limits of Civil Disobedience

The Limits of Civil Disobedience
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 24, 2014

Summary: Permit us to be blunt. If the concept of "civil disobedience" can be so flagrantly abused, why do we even need democratic elections? Why bother to abide by any system whatsoever? After all, it's winner take all. Losers can simply play the "civil disobedience" card. The KMT has been paralyzed by "civil disobedience." But suppose there is yet another change in ruling parties? Will the DPP find itself on the receiving end of "civil disobedience?" We will have to wait and see.

Full text below:

The Sunflower Student Movement has ended. But the social and political movements provoked by the students remain on the ascendant. During the student movement the television cameras captured the naive and uncomplicated expressions of the protesting youths. They also revealed the methodical planning behind the movement. They television cameras forced adults to look upon the students with grudging admiration. They enabled the student movement to win public support and recognition.

The students have dispersed. But the passions surrounding the movement have intensified. Misconceptions about the student movement have shaken the foundations of our social order. It is time to let go of passions, and cooly contemplate the Sunflower phenomenon. If one sits back and allows misconceptions to persist, eventually our government and society will cease to function. This is very worrisome.

Mobs beseiged and occupied government offices. Many people would rationalize away their behavior as "civil disobedience." Civil disobedience has suddenly become a buzz word. Student groups occupied the Legislative Yuan, stormed the Executive Yuan, and eventually laid seige to a police substation. Groups opposed to the construction of windmills occupied the atrium of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Groups opposed to the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant began a hunger strike and surrounded the Legislative Yuan. Every one of them invoked the concept of "civil disobedience." Even KMT legislators invoked "civil disobedience" when questioning Premier Chiang. This forced political scientists to offer an impromptu class in remedial political science for legislators.

Can Premier Chiang's interpretation allay legislative doubts? We do not know. But we can be sure that "civil disobedience" rhetoric has already confused many members of the public. This is reminiscent of the STA. Many people have no idea what the STA stands for. Yet they march in lockstep to oppose it. Many people have no idea what the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant controversy is about. Yet they have hurriedly jumped on the anti-nuclear bandwagon. They oppose this. They oppose that. They trample over existing laws. They refuse to abide by the results of legal protocol. Instead, they trot out "civil disobedience" rhetoric to rationalize illegal conduct. Apparently illegal conduct is able to magically seize the moral high ground.

Sunflower student leaders Lin Fei-fan and Chen Wei-ting were questioned on suspicion of obstructing official business. They surrendered to the Taipei District Prosecutor's Office. Their statements brimmed over with boasts that their conduct constituted "civil disobedience." They essentially proclaimed that even if their conduct was unreasonable, disorderly, and illegal, they need merely redefined it as "civil disobedience" in order to escape punishment. They may even be praised as heroes. Lin Fei-fan and Chen Wei-ting trotted out this high-minded rhetoric. They even argued that their conduct saved constitutional rule and democracy. 

This is truly clever sophistry. Their conduct clearly undermined constitutional rule and democracy. But all they had to do was label it "civil disobedience," and presto, they are instantly transformed into saviors of constitutional rule and democracy. Such useful political rhetoric., They could ignore the rule of law. They could destroy the system. They could do whatever they wanted. Afterwards, all they had to do was to spin their conduct as "civil disobedience." They can then claim without blushing or breathing hard, that they were in fact saving the system, therefore the police cannot arrest them, prosecutors cannot indict them, and judges cannot judge them. If they do, then they are resorting to "state violence" against them.

Is constitutional rule and democracy on today's Taiwan in fact on the brink of a crisis? Has it in fact been brought to the level where it must be saved by the likes of Lin Fei-fan and Chen Wei-ting? Can it be saved only by occupying the Legislative Yuan, storming the Executive Yuan, and beseiging a police precinct station? If so, then the 30 years since the lifting of martial law count for nothing. The constitutional reforms, the second change in ruling parties, the praise the nation has earned as an exemplar of third wave democratic transition and consolidation. These and other achievements all count for nothing.

Or perhaps we can pose the question in a different way. Citizens pay taxes and elect legislators. The vast majority of the students have yet to pay any taxes. Yet they occupied the Legislative Yuan for over 20 days. They seriously delayed legislative business. Many major bills affecting the public welfare could not be reviewed, harming the interests of many citizens. Yet the students who occupied the Legislative Yuan declared that by engaging in "civil disobedience," they were saving constitutional rule and democracy. Put bluntly, they, not the taxpayers, are the true "citizens." As for those who choose to obey the system, who pay their taxes according to the law, who voted for the representatives of their choice? Well, tough luck. They probably got what they deserved.

Actually, this is the biggest crisis on Taiwan. Our democracy holds elections. It elects a government and a legislature, according to majority rule. But opposition political parties and groups are unwilling to accept the results. So they use obstructionism and mass movements to overthrow majority rule, and destroy the rules of the game. They euphemistically refer to this as "civil disobedience." They further claim that only they represent the people. Democracy is what they say it is, nothing else. Anything that fails to go their way, is labeled a backroom deal. They have flagrantly destroyed the system, yet blatantly boast that they saved the system.

"On Civil Disobedience" is a famous essay, written in 1894, by famed American author Henry David Thoreau. He was protesting against the Mexican-American War and slavery at the time. He refused to pay the poll tax. He was arrested and imprisoned. Later, during the mid-20th century, African American civil rights leader Martin Luther King protested discriminatory laws and policies against blacks in the southern states.

He too invoked "civil disobedience" during his protests. These examples constitute the true fulfillment of justice. They were not motivated by the desire to benefit a particular political party's private interests.

Permit us to be blunt. If the concept of "civil disobedience" can be so flagrantly abused, why do we even need democratic elections? Why bother to abide by any system whatsoever? After all, it's winner take all. Losers can simply play the "civil disobedience" card. The KMT has been paralyzed by "civil disobedience." But suppose there is yet another change in ruling parties? Will the DPP find itself on the receiving end of "civil disobedience?" We will have to wait and see.

社論－公民不服從的界限
2014年04月24日 04:10 中國時報 本報訊

太陽花學運雖然已經落幕，學生們激起的社會與政治運動卻方興未艾。學運期間的電視鏡頭前，街頭那些單純而質樸孩子們的臉孔，展現出細膩的規畫力與有條不紊的執行力，莫不讓大人們刮目相看，讓學運贏得國人一定的肯定與支持。

學生已經散去，盤旋上空的激情反而愈繞愈緊，學運傳遞的一些錯誤觀念，正逐漸衝擊維持社會穩定運作的重要基礎。現在應該是放下激情，冷靜思考「太陽花現象」的時機。如果坐視錯誤觀念繼續穿透這個社會，不久以後，整個政府與社會的運作會趨於崩解，我們對此極為憂心。

首先，一些人為了合理化脫序的群眾包圍或占據官署作為，「公民不服從」突然成了流行用語，從學運團體發動占領國會、攻占行政院，到後續衍生的群眾包圍警局，乃至反風車團體占領經濟部中庭，甚至這幾天為反核四所啟動的絕食、包圍立院等，無一不可以扯上「公民不服從」，連國民黨立委都拿「公民不服從」的議題來質詢江揆，逼得這位昔日的政治學者得緊急給立委上課！

江揆的詮釋能否為立委解惑我們不知道，但我們可以確定的是，「公民不服從」語言已經發揮了它應有的混淆效果。這就好像許多人根本還沒搞懂究竟什麼是「服貿」，就跟著反服貿，還未認識「核四」是怎麼回事，就急著跳進來反核四，反來反去，觸犯了一堆現行法，又不甘心接受司法審理，於是，再紛紛搬出「公民不服從」論調，來合理化自己所有的違法行徑。結果，明明是違法脫序的行為，卻彷彿還占據了道德的制高點。

太陽花學運領袖林飛帆和陳為廷，因為涉嫌妨礙公務遭到約談，日前主動前往北檢「自首」，在他們洋洋灑灑的聲明中，即是宣稱他們的一切所作所為，都是依循所謂「公民不服從」的法理。這無異宣稱：就算再不合理的違法脫序行為，只要被界定為「公民不服從」，不僅不應被懲罰，還應該被歌頌才對！林飛帆和陳為廷就是搬出了這個冠冕堂皇的推論前提，進一步宣稱他們所採取的行動，是為了挽救已陷險境的憲政、民主！

這真的是一個高明的詭辯！一樁明明是在破壞憲政、民主的作為，冠上了所謂「公民不服從」的外衣，卻可以立即翻轉為是在挽救憲政與民主！多麼好用的政治修辭，我可以無視法治，我可以破壞體制，我甚至可以為所欲為，只要宣稱我是在踐履「公民不服從」，我可以臉不紅、氣不喘的宣稱我其實是在挽救體制，所以警察不能法辦我，司法更不能審判我，否則就是在對我行使「國家暴力」！

問題是，當前台灣的憲政與民主，真的已經瀕臨到陷入險境，淪落到非得要由林飛帆和陳為廷來挽救的地步？或是非得要占領國會、攻占政院，包圍警局才能挽救的局面？若真是如此，那麼台灣過去30年從解嚴、憲改、兩度政黨輪替，甚至被譽為全球第三波民主轉型與鞏固的模範生，這些林林總總的成就，根本不值一提，是嗎？

或者，容我們換一個方式問：我們合法納稅的公民所選出來的國會，被一群絕大多數尚未納稅的學生占領了20多天，導致立法進度嚴重遲滯，諸多重大民生法案無法完成立法程序，不少公民的權益因此受損，但占領立院的學生卻宣稱，他們是在行使「公民不服從」，他們是在挽救憲政與民主，講得再直白一些，他們才是「公民」，至於那些選擇服從體制，合法納稅，投票選出自己代議士的公民呢？只能自認倒楣，甚至活該嗎？

這其實正是台灣當前最大的危機。我們透過民主的競賽規則，選出一個代表多數民意的政府與國會，在野的政黨與團體不願接受這個結果，於是藉由議事抵制與群眾運動來推翻這個多數，甚至破壞這個競賽規則，還美化稱之其為「公民不服從」，再進一步宣稱只有他們才能代表人民，依他們的意才叫民主，不依他們意就是黑箱，他們明明摧毀了體制，卻還大剌剌宣稱是在挽救體制。

「論公民的不服從」是19世紀的美國著名作家亨利梭羅於1849年所撰寫的一篇短文，他當年是為了抗議美墨戰爭、奴隸制度拒絕付人頭稅，而被逮捕入獄；稍後20世紀中葉的美國黑人民權領袖金恩博士，亦曾為了抗議南部各州歧視黑人的法律與政策，而同樣藉由「公民不服從」的訴求加以抗爭。這些事例之所以會載入史冊，是他們確實是為了踐履某種實質正義，而非為讓特定政黨圖謀一黨之私。

且容我們不客氣的說，如果說「公民不服從」可以被這般的濫用，那我們何需要什麼民主與選舉？何需要什麼恪遵體制？反正贏家勝者全拿，輸家就玩「公民不服從」即可。只不過今日的國民黨被「公民不服從」整得寸步難行，但是政黨輪替後，民進黨就一定不會遭逢「公民不服從」的衝撞嗎？且讓我們拭目以待。