One Step Forward, Two Steps Back. Tsai Ing-wen and the Post-Student Movement DPP

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back.
Tsai Ing-wen and the Post-Student Movement DPP
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 26, 2014

Summary: The DPP has a fatal flaw. It knows how to attack and destroy, but it has no idea how to build. Tsai Ing-wen may be more sober than Su Tseng-chang. But she remains capricious, superficial, and lacking in seriousness. She has long sought office this way. She and the DPP must take a hard look at the problem. In the wake of the student movement, the DPP appears to have advanced, but has actually retreated. Worse, it has taken one step forward and two steps back. Tsai Ing-wen is using high minded rhetoric to lead the DPP. She is attempting to change Taiwan. To do so however, she may first need to change her own thinking.

Full Text Below:

Su Tseng-chang and Frank Hsieh withdrew from the DPP chairmanship election. Yesterday Tsai Ing-wen was elected party chairman by over 93% of the votes. This shows how invincible she is within the party. She has won the chairmanship and the right to lead the party. But does this mean Tsai Ing-wen will be able to complete the final mile in 2016? That remains as much in question as it did two years ago.

The question is twofold. One. The Sunflower Student Movement has changed the DPP's policy path. Its political foundations are actually undergoing retreat despite the outerward appearance of progress. Two. Tsai Ing-wen's own thinking appears hollow and wavering. It cannot withstand close scrutiny.

First consider the student movement. Tsai Ing-wen is undeniably the biggest beneficiary of the Sunflower Student Movement. The student movement dealt a serious blow to the image of the Ma administration. But it also put the screws to the DPP. Key elements within the student movement are close to the Tsai camp. They even forced Su Tseng-chang and Frank Hsieh to withdraw from the three-way leadership race prematurely. As a result, Tsai Ing-wen became the voice of "generational change."

Now consider another perspective. Tsai Ing-wen has benefitted from the student movement. But the Democratic Progressive Party's image has been damaged, and its policy path undermined. In other words, Tsai may not be a beneficiary in the long term. First, the DPP has sought to reform its Mainland policy since last year. The student movement's anti-STA demands have created a serious setback, to the point where the DPP can no longer make corrections. This could be fatal. Second, a succession of social movements and student movements have left the DPP nearly impotent. It has been reduced to "me-tooing." DPP influence has been seriously weakened. Third, on the surface, the student movement and social movements appear to echo the DPP. They resemble a coordinated attack on the ruling KMT. But in fact, they divide public support for the DPP. The general public is dissatisfied with representative politics, with chaos in the streets, and withe chronic unrest. The DPP is taking much of the heat.

Tsai Ing-wen has inherited leadership of the Democratic Progressive Party from Su Tseng-chang. But she must also deal with these blows to the DPP's image. She must deal with conflicts over strategy, and reactionaries who would drag the party into the past. She must ensure that the DPP engages in rational political discourse. He must restore its strategic status as a political party. In particular, Tsai Ing-wen must use her authority as party chairman to win the presidency in 2016. Over the past two years she was able to use Su Tseng-chang as a shield. This enabled her to express different views and score numerous victories. Now that their positions are reversed, the situation is very different, and little room remains for evasion.

Over the past two years, Tsai Ing-wen has held no political office. Therefore she appears to be sitting and waiting with exceptional calm. Unlike her comrades,such as Su Tseng-chang, she has not been subject to criticism. Unlike Frank Hsieh, she has not had to wrack her brains seeking a political stage. She could laugh as Ma Ying-jeou became an arrow magnet. But look more closely. Has Tsai Ing-wen changed over the past two years? Is she better prepared to lead Taiwan? We see few if any such signs. This brings us to our second point. Tsai Ing-wen has apparently never shifted her political consciousness, from that of an opposition party leader, to that of a ruling party leader. This is perhaps the most serious obstacle she must overcome to complete the final mile, the same final mile she failed to complete during the previous election.

During the recent DPP party chairmanship debate, Kuo Tai-ling, a political nobody, repeatedly questioned Tsai Ing-wen, who repeatedly bobbed and weaved. She gave non-answers to real questions. She appeared calm, but her words contained no substance. Kuo Tai-ling repeated asked Tsai Ing-wen three questions. Tsai Ing-wen repeatedly flip-flopped and revealed her lack of consistency. When she was in office, she championed the completion of the NPP4. Now that she is out of office, she is demanding the abolition of nuclear power. She once unconditionally accepted ECFA. Now however she opposes the STA and MTA. She once demanded that President Ma refrain from simultanously serving as KMT party chairman. Now however, she is running for president in her capacity as party chairman. Every voter on Taiwan wants answers to these questions. But Tsai Ing-wen bobs and weaves, shines her questioners on, and never answers any of them.

One thing is particulary puzzling. Tsai Ing-wen proclaimed that the DPP must henceforth take the "path of the citizens." It must proceed from the "path of the masses" to the "path of parliament." It must establish think tanks as the framework by which the party can dialogue with civic groups. When street demonstrations were erupting everywhere, such rhetoric implied that protestors would be recruited into the party. But the party failed to provide the people any leadership. It merely hopped on the bandwagon and joined the parade. What is the raison d'etre for political parties? Besides, using the "path of the masses" to promote the "path of parliament" has never worked for the DPP ever. The Green Camp cannot improve its "path of parliament," yet it would flaunt its "path of the masses." Where is this about to take Taiwan's democracy?

The DPP has a fatal flaw. It knows how to attack and destroy, but it has no idea how to build. Tsai Ing-wen may be more sober than Su Tseng-chang. But she remains capricious, superficial, and lacking in seriousness. She has long sought office this way. She and the DPP must take a hard look at the problem. In the wake of the student movement, the DPP appears to have advanced, but has actually retreated. Worse, it has taken one step forward and two steps back. Tsai Ing-wen is using high minded rhetoric to lead the DPP. She is attempting to change Taiwan. To do so however, she may first need to change her own thinking.

進一退二：蔡英文與後學運的民進黨
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.05.26 03:09 am

在蘇貞昌與謝長廷棄選下，蔡英文昨天以超過九成三的高得票率當選黨主席，顯示她在黨內的人氣無人能敵。然而，奪得主席領導權，能否幫蔡英文走完二○一六的「最後一哩」，這個問號恐怕不比兩年前小。

其中關鍵有二：一是太陽花學運對民進黨路線的拉扯和衝擊，已造成政治基礎的「形進實退」；二則是蔡英文本身的執政思考一直顯得空泛和搖擺，經不起認真檢驗。

先談學運因素。無可否認，蔡英文是太陽花學運的最大受益者：學運不僅嚴重打擊馬政府形象，同時也高度擠壓了民進黨的反對角色；而學運核心分子與蔡英文陣營的緊密關係，甚至迫使蘇貞昌、謝長廷提前退出「三個太陽」的主席之爭，使蔡英文在「世代交替」的呼聲中理所當然地取得指揮棒。

但從另一方面看，蔡英文在學運的獲益，其實卻是以損傷民進黨的路線和形象作為代價；加總而言，對蔡英文長期未必有利。第一，學運的「反服貿」訴求，使得民進黨去年以來一直力求轉型與突破的中國政策發生嚴重倒退，甚至已退到難以轉圜的地步，這是一大致命傷。第二，在學運及其前後的幾波社運中，民進黨幾乎無力插足，甚至淪為插花的角色，這顯示民進黨影響力大為弱化。第三，表面上看，學運、社運似乎與民進黨互為呼應，對執政黨形成分進合擊之勢；實際上，卻瓜分了群眾對民進黨的支持。觀察一般民眾對代議政治的不滿，對街頭亂象頻仍的不安，民進黨恐怕要承受更多責難。

也因為如此，在蔡英文從蘇貞昌手中重新接下民進黨的領導權之後，她必須一一處理這些形象損傷、戰略矛盾、和路線倒退的問題，把民進黨的問政理性、話語權、和政黨戰略地位找回來。尤其，蔡英文是要利用主席的指揮權為自己奪下二○一六的總統大位，這和她過去兩年可以利用蘇貞昌為擋箭牌一邊發表不同看法、一邊等著收拾戰果，主客之間，形勢即大不相同，她沒有太多迴避的餘裕。

回顧過去兩年，蔡英文因沒有政治職務在身，而顯得好整以暇，格外從容。她既不像蘇貞昌那樣飽受同志批評，也不必像謝長廷那樣挖空心思尋找舞台，甚至對馬英九遭萬箭穿心可以談笑風生。然而，若進一步檢視蔡英文兩年前後的變化，要說她已就領導台灣的各方面能力準備得更臻周全，則似乎仍難找到可靠的跡象。這就是我們要談的第二點：蔡英文本身的從政準備，似乎仍無法從「反對意識」進展到「執政思考」；這點，恐怕仍是她要完成上屆大選沒走完的「最後一哩」最大的障礙。

民進黨日前舉辦的黨主席選舉辯論會中，在名不見經傳的唯一對手郭泰麟的追問下，蔡英文一再閃躲、實問虛答，貌似從容，卻未說出言之有物的話。郭泰麟的「三問」，問的正是蔡英文的立場反覆、缺乏一致性，包括：執政時主張續建核四、如今又倡廢核；曾宣示概括承受ＥＣＦＡ，現在又反服貿反貨貿；要求馬總統不兼黨主席，自己卻又以黨主席角逐公職。這些，其實也是每個台灣選民都想知道的事，但蔡英文左閃躲、右迴旋，草草應付，無一解答。

最令人不解的是，蔡英文宣稱民進黨未來要走「公民路線」，經「群眾路線」走向「議會路線」，並架構智庫作為黨和公民團體的對話平台。在街頭示威四起之際，這樣的說法固有招兵買馬「收編」街頭的意味；然而，政黨提不出自己引領政局的主張，卻去附街頭運動的驥尾，試問，政黨存在的意義何在？再說，用「群眾路線」來推進「議會路線」，是民進黨多年來證實走不通的路；綠營無法提升其議會路線品質，卻奢言要回頭從群眾路線出發，這將把台灣的民主帶向何方？

民進黨的致命傷，是善於攻擊、破壞，卻忘了如何建設。比起蘇貞昌，蔡英文或許更有冷靜的特質，但她善於應變、包裝，卻缺乏認真、一貫的執政處方，卻是她自己和民進黨必須誠實並懇切檢視的問題。後學運的民進黨其實是形進實退，甚至是「進一步、退兩步」；蔡英文在高談率領民進黨改變並改變台灣，恐怕得先從改變她自己的心態與思維入手。