If This Continues, Taiwan's Democracy Will Have Nothing Left to Boast About

If This Continues, Taiwan's Democracy Will Have Nothing Left to Boast About
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 12, 2014

Summary: When Taiwan implemented democracy, it lost some degree of efficiency. This was a price everyone had to pay. But if national policy remains forever subject to short-sighted election pressures, then representative politics and a pluralistic society will forever be at the mercy of a minority able to dominate the system. When we persist in boasting about our "Taiwanese style democracy," are we not guilty of willful blindness?

Full Text Below:

The Sunflower Student Movement provoked dismay among Taiwan democracy watchers. The Economist lamented that Taiwan's future could well be decided in its streets. Terry Gou reminded everyone that "One cannot eat democracy. Democracy does nothing for the GDP." Singaporean entrepreneurs sympathetic to Taiwan's plight underscored the fact that Singapore "succeeded in the absence of democracy." Just how did Taiwan's democracy end up in today's mess?

Carefully analysis shows us that the problem bedeviling democracy on Taiwan is not the reaction of the mobs in the streets. Nor is it Terry Gou's complaint about "too much democracy." The real problem is that Taiwanese society has been inordinately proud of its "pro forma democracy." Democracy is merely a means of political participation. Taiwanese society however,k has confused it with the end. It has forgotten that democracy, like economic development, requires transformation and upgrading. For proof, take a look at the newly reconvened legislature. Opposition legislators have resumed their brute force occupation, obstructionism, and verbal abuse. They show no shame or remorse for their brute force occupation of the legislative hall. Meanwhile, in response to ubiquitous mass movements, the Ma administration has done nothing but make irrelevant personnel changes. It too remains oblivous to the real problem.

One cannot of course eat democracy. Democracy is a means of solving rice production and job allocations. What the mobs on the street demand is fairness in job allocations. What concerns Terry Gou is mob opposition to the STA, the NPP4, and economic liberalization. Such opposition means Taiwan will eventually have no rice to eat. In other words, Taiwan's problem is that its political framework no longer works. It can no longer balance production and distribution. As a result, people feel compelled to take to the streets and protest, while industrialists wring their hands in despair.

The absence of economic growth and economic breakthroughs has forced Taiwan to acknowledge the necessity of industrial restructuring. But people have yet to acknowledge the necessity of political transformation and upgrading. Many persist in boasting about Taiwan's democracy. They see it as a point of pride in East Asian and ethnic Chinese circles. This complacent "Ah Q" attitude has blinded Taiwan to the defects in its democracy. This blind spot makes it difficult to improve the standard of Taiwan's politics.

A review of Taiwan's democratization could solve many of its problems. But many other problems have never been fully addressed. Over time, their negative effects have accumulated and spread, making improvements impossible. This problem can be examined on three levels.

First, there is the problem of unresolved national identity. Taiwan's democratization is rooted in emotionally sensitive "ethnic" (social group) conflicts and national identity conflicts. Over the past 30 years, democratic elections, constitutional government, and deregulation have resulted in ruling party changes, freedom of speech,and the dissolution of "ethnic barriers" (social group barriers). But with the rise of Mainland economic power and its decline on Taiwan, problems with national identity have become increasingly acute The recent dispute over STA revolved around cross-Strait relations, from beginning to end. Cross-Strait relations has also been at the root of the student movement's antipathy toward Mainland China. The DPP's opportunistic Mainland policy is deliberately linked to opposition to Ma, to hatred of the Mainland, and to the incitement of social prejudices.

Second, ruling and opposition party politicians are deficient in both personal character and technical expertise. Taiwan's post-60s and 70s economic miracle was due largely to a windfall profit in human capital. This human capital was brought to Taiwan when the central government moved from Nanking to Taipei. Democratization, localization, and populism has resulted in anti-elitist tendencies, making many people of talent reluctant to join the government or work with political parties, The democratic process has contributed to a perverse, anti-Darwinian, "elimination of the fittest." All it takes is one look at the crude and irrational politics of the ruling and opposition legislators. Focusing exclusively on redistricting and halving the number of legislators did not improve the quality of our democracy in the slightest.

Third, civil society is subject to divisions and pressures. The quality of a democracy is largely dependent upon the character of its citizens. In recent years, the character of citizens on Taiwan has improved. But cut-throat battles between the Blue and Green camps have forced many moderates to remain invisible or silent. They wish to avoid political labels. Over time, this has resulted in a lack of objectivity, a lack o fneutrality, and a lack of professionalism on public issues. Populist rhetoric has led to the triumph of mediocrity. Political pressures have forced many dissenters into silence. They force people who are neutral or who have reservations to choose sides. In many ways, what we have runs counter to democracy. Unfortunately a growing number of social movements on Taiwan are indifferent to morality and ethics. Some "citizens groups" have even become vassals of political parties and forfeited their independence.

When Taiwan implemented democracy, it lost some degree of efficiency. This was a price everyone had to pay. But if national policy remains forever subject to short-sighted election pressures, then representative politics and a pluralistic society will forever be at the mercy of a minority able to dominate the system. When we persist in boasting about our "Taiwanese style democracy," are we not guilty of willful blindness?

這樣下去，台灣民主將無驕傲可言
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.05.12 02:04 am

太陽花學運後，引起了各方對台灣民主的喟嘆。《經濟學人》說，台灣未來將演成「由街頭決定」；郭台銘說，「民主不能當飯吃，民主對ＧＤＰ沒有任何幫助」；同情台灣困境的星國企業家則慨嘆，新加坡是「贏在沒有民主」。台灣的民主，何以走到今天的地步？

如果仔細分辨，當前台灣民主政治的大患，其實不是群眾在街頭的反撲，也不是郭台銘以為的「太過民主」；真正的問題在，台灣社會一直過度以自己現有的「形式民主」為傲，誤將民主作為政治參與的「手段」當成「目的」，卻忘了民主政治就和經濟發展一樣也需要「轉型」與「升級」。這點，只需觀察重新開議的立法院，在野黨立委仍在進行霸占、杯葛、謾罵的粗暴遊戲，對國會遭占領之恥毫無反省，可見一斑；相對的，針對群眾運動四起，馬政府則僅進行了些許無關痛癢的人事調整，一樣是無感的。

民主當然不能當飯吃，民主是為了解決「飯的生產」及「飯碗分配」問題的手段。街頭群眾強調的，是訴求「飯碗分配」的公平性；而郭台銘憂慮的則是，群眾反對服貿、反對核四、反對經濟開放，一直反下去，台灣最後會連飯都沒得吃。亦即，目前台灣政治的問題，癥結在政治體制無法發揮應有的效能，無法兼顧「生產」與「分配」的均衡，導致民眾必須上街抗爭，而實業家則憂心忡忡。

這些年，在經濟成長缺乏突破的壓力下，台灣注意到了產業必須轉型的迫切性；但人們卻似乎仍未意識到台灣政治也到了需要「轉型」與「升級」的時刻，許多人依舊動輒誇示台灣的民主「成就」，以為它是台灣在東亞及華人圈的莫大驕傲。這種阿Ｑ式的自滿心態，導致台灣無法正視自己的民主癥結，這才是政治品質難以提升的盲點所在。

回顧台灣民主化的歷程，其實解決了許多問題，但也有許多問題卻始終未能徹底處理；久而久之，或積非成是，或劣根橫生，使得民主品質無法繼續提升。這點，可試從三個層次來解讀：

首先，是國家認同的懸而未決：台灣民主化的動力，來自族群矛盾與國家認同衝突這兩大敏感議題。過去卅年，台灣民主進境主要是由於憲政及選制的鬆綁，完成了政權輪替、言論自由、族群隔閡消退等任務；然而，在國家認同上，卻隨著中國大陸的崛起及台灣經濟力的相對衰退轉趨尖銳。最近服貿協議之爭，主旋律始終縈繞著兩岸關係，學運的反中基調亦源於此；而民進黨在中國政策的投機取向，刻意將「反馬」與「仇中」畫上等號，在在挑撥社會情緒。

其次，朝野從政者的素質及器識問題：台灣六、七○年代後的經濟奇蹟，很大的因素是得利於政府遷台帶來的「人口紅利」及「人才紅利」；而隨著「民主化」及「本土化」的發展，政治上的「民粹」氛圍往往帶有「反菁英」傾向，使得許多人才不願加入政府或進入政黨工作，也因此助長了民主的「反淘汰」。這點，只要看看朝野立委在國會粗暴無理的問政，即一目了然；對此，僅著眼於選區重劃或立委減半的技術性變革，顯然對民主問政品質毫無任何助益。

第三，公民社會的切割和擠壓：一個國家的民主品質，有很大成分是取決於廣大公民的基本素質。近年台灣公民的素養不是沒有成長，但在藍綠對決的割喉戰爭下，許多中間公民選擇「隱形」或「不語」，以避免被貼上政治標籤。長期下來，便造成了台灣許多公共議題缺乏客觀、中立、專業的聲音，而平庸的民粹論述卻一再得逞。用政治壓力迫使不同意見的人噤聲，甚至強迫中立或持保留看法的人必須表態選邊，在某種程度上，都是民主的逆流。遺憾的是，台灣越來越多的社會運動都表現出這類道德壓迫本能，甚至，有些打著「公民運動」旗號的團體，選擇成為政黨的附庸，失去自己的獨立性。

台灣因落實民主而失去一些施政效率，是所有人民必須容忍且共同承受的代價。但是，如果國家決策進程永遠受絆於短視的選舉時程，代議政治及多元社會總是被少數人脅制與把持，我們還要誇稱這就是「台式民主」的驕傲，會不會太愚昧了？