When Democracy is a Reality, Revolution is a Betrayal

When Democracy is a Reality, Revolution is a Betrayal
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
April 18, 2014

Summary: The Sunflower Student Movement is a "Not enough sleep. It's your fault!" fairy tale revolution. Take a closer look at the two themes of "defend democracy" and "withdraw the STA." The public on Taiwan must be honest. Is this really defending democracy? Or is this a betrayal of democracy? Is this anti-China demagoguery? Or is this simply visiting disaster upon Taiwan?

Full text below:

The student movement advanced two themes, "defend democracy" and "withdraw the STA." First take "defend democracy." The student movement was ostensibly motivated by democracy. But as time went by it became increasingly anti-democratic. The occupation of the Legislative Yuan and the invasion of the Executive Yuan were illegal and lacked all legitimacy. Now take "withdraw the STA." The proposed "Cross-Strait Agreements Conclusion Ordinance" attempts to hijack the government and force it to adopt a Taiwan independence cross-Strait policy, and reject globalization as the strategy for Taiwan's survival.

Daniel R. Russel is U.S. State Department Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. What he says can be regarded as the U.S. government's official comment on the student movement. First, Russell said that the United States welcomes the progress made by the Ma government in promoting cross-Strait relations. He said it was a continuation of the U.S. government's long held positive evaluation of recent cross-Strait policy. He spoke in no uncertain terms. Conversely his statement can be considered a critique of the student movement's cross-Strait policy demands. Secondly, Russell said that he hoped the students and organizations demonstrating against free trade would act responsibly. That they would adopt free, civilized, and peaceful means of demonstration, and avoid violence. The U.S. government harshly criticized the Chen government's Taiwan independence political maneuvers as unhelpful to Taiwan's democracy. This is the first time it has criticized civilian sector political demonstrations. Its statement implied that the student movement was "uncivilized, not peaceful, violent and failed to make responsible use of its freedom." Russell said America does not agree with the student movement's cross-Strait policy. It does not think the student movement's occupation of the Legislative Yuan and invasion of the Executive Yuan were civilized and responsible democratic behavior.

The student movement invoked the slogan "When dictatorship is a reality, revolution is a duty." But conversely, "When democracy is a reality, revolution is a betrayal." Politics and government on Taiwan are flawed. But the ROC is one of the freest, most democratic nations in the world. This is universally recognized. Therefore, no one can arbitrarily accuse it of being a "government of jackals and hyenas" or of being an "authoritarian regime." The student movement proclaimed that "revolution is not a crime, rebellion is justified." But when democracy has become a reality, occupation of the Legislative Yuan and invasion of the Executive Yuan is a betrayal of democracy and the rule of law.

Taiwan was witness to the 2004 "Two Bullets" mass protests in 2004, and the Red Shirts protests in 2006. During the Red Shirts protest one million individuals participated. Yet no one stormed the presidential palace. This is where the ROC differs from Thailand and Ukraine. The student movement occupied the Legislative Yuan and invaded the Executive Yuan. Where is their legitimacy? 

Legislative review of the STA may have contained procedural defects. But this "nine months plus thirty seconds" Legislative Yuan farce is old hat. Does the failure of representative politics justify occupying the Legislative Yuan? The Legislative Yuan resists passing Sunshine Laws, capital gains taxes, market price reporting. The DPP occupies the podium, holds "sleep-ins" on the floor of the Legislative Yuan. Wang Jin-pyng engages in judicial influence peddling. So when should one advocate civil disobedience and when should one occupy the floor of the Legislative Yuan? Opponents of the STA occupied the floor of the Legislative Yuan. Can supporters of the STA invoke the same justifications to moblize the public and occupy the floor of the Legislative Yuan? 

Every time chaos erupts in the Legislative Yuan, the opposition demands a "Citizens' Constitutional Convention." But why not ask a different question? If Wang Jin-pyng were not playing "party consultation" tricks, would the STA have become a "nine months plus thirty seconds" farce? It is easy to occupy the floor of the Legislative Yuan. It it hard to get Wang Jin-pyng to change his political tricks. People are forced to sit and watch as Wang Jin-pyng and Ker Chien-ming destroy popular representation and majority rule. They are forced to listen to slogans such as "When dictatorship is a fact, revolution is a duty." The misuse of such slogans tramples over democracy, and insults revolutions.

Had student movement demanded "procedural legitimacy." it might have retained its democratic bona fides. But the student movement proposed a "Cross-Strait Agreements Conclusion Ordinance." If the Legislative Yuan failed to meekly obey, the student movement threatened to lay siege to the presidential palace. If this is it thinks, the student movement may as well establish a "revolutionary provisional government." Why bother with the Legislative Yuan? There is an even deeper question. The "Cross-Strait Agreements Conclusion Ordinance " is an attempt to coerce the government into adopting a Taiwan independence cross-Strait policy, and rejecting globalization as Taiwan's strategy for survival. Do the Oligarchs of the student movement really believe this is saving Taiwan and loving Taiwan? At one time they demanded a "referendum on the STA" and a "referendum on Taiwan independence." Such demands might be consistent with democracy. But to combine such demands with threats of violence, is anti-democratic and has no legitimacy whatsover.

The student movement was a reflection of its supporters' concern for the nation and patriotism. These must be faced squarely. But there are two concerns. One. The Oligarchs of the student movement occupied the Legislative Yuan and invaded the Executive Yuan. Their behavior had no legitimacy. Even Lin Fei-fan and Chen Wei-ting admitted that these were "illegal acts." If the public on Taiwan concludes that the occupation of the Legislative Yuan and invasion of the Executive Yuan were glorious feats of democracy, Taiwan will become the next Ukraine. Two. Taiwan's cross-Strait policy may not be flawless. But opponents of the STA want to go back to promoting Taiwan independence or rejecting globalization. Is that really the answer?

This is a "Not enough sleep. It's your fault!" fairy tale revolution. Take a closer look at the two themes of "defend democracy" and "withdraw the STA." The public on Taiwan must be honest. Is this really defending democracy? Or is this a betrayal of democracy? Is this anti-China demagoguery? Or is this simply visiting disaster upon Taiwan?

當民主已成事實 革命就是背叛
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.04.18 03:14 am

試以「捍衛民主／退回服貿」兩大主軸為此次學運定位。一、捍衛民主：這場學運有其民主性的動機，但運動的過程卻愈來愈反民主；霸占立法院及侵入行政院則皆為非法行為，絕無正當性可言。二、退回服貿：最後提出了《兩岸協定締結條例》，不啻欲挾持政府改採台獨路線的兩岸政策，並因而否決了台灣的全球化生存戰略。

美國國務院亞太助理國務卿羅素的發言，可視為美國政府對這場學運的正式評論。一、羅素說：「美方歡迎馬政府推動兩岸關係的卓越進展。」這是延續了美國近年對馬政府兩岸政策的一貫正向評價，且用了更強調的語彙。相對而言，也可視為美國官方對學運訴求之兩岸路線的負向評價。二、羅素說：「希望反服貿學生及示威團體能負責任地使用自由，文明、和平地示威，並避免暴力。」美國政府過去曾厲言批評扁政府的台獨操作無助增加台灣的民主內涵，此次則似為首次對台灣民間的政治示威事件持批評的立場，意謂這場學運存有「不文明、不和平、暴力及未能負責任地使用自由」之處。羅素的評論是在指出：美國未必認同學運主張的兩岸政策路線，亦不認為學運所採霸占立院、侵入政院等手段為文明且負責任的民主作為。

學運期間，出現了「當獨裁成為事實，革命就是義務」的口號；但是，這句口號的對照面則是：「當民主已成為事實，革命就是背叛。」台灣的政治及行政品質縱有種種缺失，但台灣確是全世界民主化及自由度最高的國家之一，這是舉世共認的事實。因此，不容任何人恣意貼上「豺狼政府」、「獨裁政府」的標籤，就自拉自唱地宣告「革命無罪／造反有理」。當民主已成事實，霸占立院及侵入政院就是對民主與法治的背叛

台灣曾歷經二○○四年兩顆子彈及二○○六年紅衫軍兩大街頭群眾事件；尤其紅衫軍號稱百萬示威，也沒有人衝進總統府。這正是台灣與泰國及烏克蘭不同之處，則這場學運霸占立院及侵入政院的正當性何在？

立院審查服貿確有其程序不正義，但這個「九個月加卅秒」的立院醜態並非始自今日。如果認為立院的代議政治失敗，即可霸占立院；則在立院抵拒陽光法案時、抗拒證所稅時、頑抗實價登錄時、霸占主席台時、在議場打地鋪時，及王金平涉及司法關說時，何時不應主張「公民不服從」？何時不應霸占議場？即以此次反服貿者霸占議場言，則為何支持服貿者如彭淮南等人不能也率眾霸占議場？

再者，每論及立院亂象，動輒就上綱到「公民憲政會議」，但為什麼不反問：只要王金平不要玩弄他的「朝野協商」，就不會出現服貿這種「九個月加卅秒」的醜態？如今卻是：霸占議場易，改變王金平難；坐視整個多數統治原則的代議制度毀在王金平與柯建銘之手，然後再來說「當獨裁已成事實／革命就成義務」，這其實是作踐了民主，也汙辱了革命。

如果這場學運只是主張逐條審查的「程序正義」，那或許尚能維持其民主性。但學運提出了《兩岸協定締結條例》，並揚言立院若不照辦，就要去圍總統府；那麼，學運何不乾脆自組「革命臨時執政團」，何必還要立法院？更深一層的問題是：《兩岸協定締結條例》是在脅迫政府改採台獨路線的兩岸政策，並進而否決了台灣全球化的生存戰略；如果學運寡頭真的相信這就是救台灣、愛台灣的抉擇，其實倘能主張付諸「服貿公投」或「台獨公投」，這或許還能有其民主正當性，但若把要脅當作要求，那就根本是反民主，更何來正當性？

這場學運所反映的附從者之憂國心情及愛國情操必須嚴正面對。但是：一、學運寡頭霸占立院及侵入政院的行為絕無正當性，這是連林飛帆及陳為廷二人都承認的「非法行為」；台灣社會若認為霸占立院及侵入政院是光榮的民主壯舉，台灣就將是下一個烏克蘭。二、台灣難有萬全的兩岸政策，但反服貿運動者提供的方案若竟是「再回頭搞台獨」或「拒絕全球化」，這難道不是一個太離譜的答案？

這是一場「睡不飽，你害的」童話革命。請再檢視「捍衛民主／退回服貿」兩大主軸，台灣社會應誠實面對：這究竟是捍衛民主、還是背叛民主？究竟是反中抗中、還是禍台害台？