Social Movements: Just Saying No Cannot Help Taiwan

Social Movements: Just Saying No Cannot Help Taiwan
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
May 5, 2014 

Summary: The Economist magazine has noted that Taiwan's future just may be decided in the streets. The Economist's implications were twofold. One. That the political system's decision-making ability is weaker than ever. Two. That street protests are an ineffective means to rule a country. Taiwan's political and economic ills are serious. They require aggressive and thoughtful cures. They require more than merely taking to the streets and shouting "No!"

Full Text Below:

The Economist magazine has noted that Taiwan's future just may be decided in the streets. The Economist's implications were twofold. One. That the political system's decision-making ability is weaker than ever. Two. That street protests are an ineffective means to rule a country.

The Economist's observations were not groundless. In an April 29 editorial, this newspaper wondered, "Will Taiwan be reduced to obeying commands issued by mobs in the streets?" It expressed the same concerns as The Economist regarding this phenomenon. The Sunflower Student Movement delayed ratification of the STA. That may have been the result of unavoidable circumstances. But Lin Yi-hsiung fasted to protest the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Under internal and external pressure, the ruling administration caved in and mothballed the plant. In effect, it turned a "Referendum on Whether to Halt Construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant" into a harder to pass "Referendum on Whether to Restart Construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant." The government still cannot quell the controversy over the referendum law threshold. The DPP continues its struggle.

The Ma administration caved in to the policy demands issued by the street protesters. Was this really necessary? Whether it was or not, enormous damage has been done to the government's authority. The government could not convert the masses on the streets to its way of thinking. It could even not persuade its own officials of the soundness of its decisions. It showed itself to be timid and cowardly. Mor seriously still, it paid a price for undermining the rule of law. It sacrificed the aspirations of the silent majority. This was the most frustrating aspect of it all. Over the past two years, the Ma adminstration has retreated again and again in the face of street mobs. All it received in return was diminished public authority.

The perverse phenomenon of "street mobs dictating public policy" has now become standard operating procedure on Taiwan. Opposition Green Camp parties bear much responsibility. The Legislative Yuan is among the important sectors of the government. Yet the opposition Green Camp parties, who hold over 40% of the seats in the legislature, have never perceived themselves as part of the government, They have never contributed to the nation. To the contrary, they have enaged in obstructionism, incited social divisions, obstructed the progress of the nation and society. If not for 20 years of internecine warfare between the Blue and Green camps, would Taiwan have declined so precipitously? Would the new generation have lost all hope for their future? Taiwan's low growth, high unemployment, and policy flip-flops make consensus nearly impossible. This was hardly the doing of President Ma alone.

When the political process fails, street movements arise. Protesters use them to vent their dissatisfaction. That is understandable. It is also an important means of forcing the government to address problems. But taking to the streets too frequently, especially when one lacks any constructive alternative, is agitation for the sake of agitation. That will never relieve Taiwan's economic stagnation and ensure its future. The reason is clear. Recent protests have opposed this, that, and the other. They have all prevented the government from achieving its goals. It is true that the Ma Chiang government failed to do enough. But such protests will only increase government wheel-spinning. They will only result in even greater stagnation. They will only make Taiwan weaker still.

The Ma government is still jabbering about "free trade zones." It is revisiting the old dreams of an "Asian Pacific Operations Center" that arose during past political turmoil. In fact, that dream is 20 years too late. Earth-shattering changes have taken place. Mainland China is about to become the world's largest economy. Times have changed. Can Taiwan stage a comeback? That is highly doubtful. But even if Taiwan does not promote "free trade zones," it still has many paths to choose from. Which of these many paths should Taiwan take? That is an even greater strategic issue. Does the DPP have any answers to such questions? No, it does not. Have the student mobs holding street demonstrations offered any solutions? We have yet to see even one. Lin Yi-hsiung has just emerged victorious from the battle over the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. He has threatened to organize public opposition to "free trade zones." Suppose he wins another victory? What alternative will he offer? What will Taiwan's next step be?

Have you noticed how the demands of the Sunflower Student Movement involve opposition to this, that, and the other? They are all opposed to Ma, to Mainland China, to globalization, or to free trade. Their opposition to Ma and to Mainland China is easier to understand. But what about their opposition to globalization and free trade? How can Taiwan realize its potential if all it can do is shouts such slogans? That is the most baffling question of all. Have student movement members and offered any quick fixes that will ensure new generation hopes for "modest but assured prosperity?" Have student movement members and public supporters gotten any answers from the DPP? The mobs opposed the STA and the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Will they follow up with opposition to the free trade zone, the referendum law, and the First, Second, and Third Nuclear Power Plants? Will they take their anger out on the police, the legislators, the MRT system, and even on passersby? Will their temper tantrums make Taiwan any better?

We would do well to look at Ukraine. People there have engaged in months of street protests. They have gotten rid of their president. The result has been greater foreign aggression and civil unrest. They have lost the Crimea. Now people of different ethnic backgrounds throughout Ukraine hate and murder each other. Street demonstrations are not some fashionable activity that democracies indulge in for their amusement. Once Pandora's Box has been opened, no one can stuff the demons back in. The streets of Taiwan appear to be moving in the same direction.

Taiwan's political and economic ills are serious. They require aggressive and thoughtful cures. They require more than merely taking to the streets and shouting "No!"

只會說「不」的社運，對台灣並無助益
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.05.05 02:46 am

《經濟學人》雜誌評論，台灣的前途恐將演成「由街頭決定」時，其言下之意有二：一是政治體制的決策力將愈來愈弱，二是街頭抗議活動並非導引國家的有效力量。

《經濟學人》之言並非無的放矢，本報四月廿九日社論《台灣能淪落到聽命街頭群眾指揮？》，已表達了對此一現象的憂心。在太陽花學運中，服貿協議的審議遭到延擱，或許是形勢所逼不得不然；但在以林義雄禁食為核心的反核四運動中，執政者在內外壓力下主動作出「封存」的退讓，形同將「核四停建公投」變成了難上加難的「核四重啟公投」。而即使如此，政府仍無法平息《公投法》的門檻爭議，民進黨依然持續鏖戰。

馬政府在政策上對街頭示威者作出退讓，無論是必要或非必要，對公權力形象都造成極大損傷：顯示政府對外無力說服群眾，對內無力證明決策的理性與必要性，也暴露了政府的怯弱、怕事。更嚴重的，是付出了法治脫序的代價，犧牲了沉默大眾的意見，這才是最令人扼腕之處。近兩年，馬政府對街頭群眾一步步退讓，換得的只是公權力愈發萎縮。

進一步說，台灣政治演出「街頭領導決策」的倒錯現象，在野黨也要負很大的責任。立法院是整個政府的重要部門之一，但是，占了四成以上席次的在野黨卻從未將自己視為政府部門之一員，設法為國家貢獻心力；反而是無時無刻不在杯葛施政、製造分歧，阻撓國家社會進步。如果不是因為藍綠廿年的內耗對峙，台灣怎麼會江河日下，節節倒退，而至新世代看不到未來願景？台灣的低成長、高失業、決策反覆、共識難以凝聚，又豈是馬總統一手造成？

在政治無法正常運作下，街頭運動興起、抗議群眾宣洩不滿，當然是可以理解的事，這也是迫使政府正視問題的重要手段之一。但必須提醒的是，過於頻繁的街頭活動，尤其是缺乏積極訴求、只是一味以製造騷亂為目的示威，對於解決台灣目前的停滯及尋求未來的出路，其實都難有什麼實質助益。原因很清楚：近來的抗議行動，都是打著「反」的旗號，以阻止政府施為為目的；而事實上，在馬江政府已經缺乏作為空間的情況下，這只會愈發使政府機器陷於空轉，並導致台灣更陷於停滯和萎弱。

坦白說，今天馬政府還在談「自由經濟示範區」，重拾當年台灣因政治紛擾而未能如願的「亞太營運中心」夢想，其實已貽誤了廿多年的時光。當全球已發生翻天覆地的變化，中國大陸即將成為世界第一大經濟體，時空變異，台灣能否再捲土重來，顯然疑問重重。然而，如果不推動「自由經濟示範區」，台灣還有多少道路可以選擇，卻是一個更大的生存戰略問題。這個問題，民進黨能提供任何解答嗎？答案是否定的。街頭示威的學生和群眾能指出任何方向嗎？我們看不到任何跡象。那麼，剛剛在反核四之役大獲全勝的林義雄，揚言要號召群眾杯葛《自由經濟示範區條例》的立法，萬一他再度稱心如意，請問，他的替代方案是什麼？台灣的下一步又是什麼？

觀察太陽花學運的訴求，穿插著「反馬」、「抗中」、「反全球化」、「反自由貿易」等不同層次的訴求。「反馬」、「反中」是比較容易理解的部分，但這如何和「反全球化」、「反自由貿易」畫上等號，又如何透過這些口號追求台灣的自我實現，才是最難、最懸疑的部分。請問：學生和學運導師們有滿足新世代「小確幸」的便捷答案嗎？學生和群眾們又向民進黨追問過答案嗎？如果在反服貿、反核四之後，群眾繼續反示範區、反公投法、反核一到核三，甚至拿警察、立委、捷運和路人出氣，這能使台灣變得更好才怪。

不妨再看看烏克蘭。人民連數月的街頭抗議，趕走了總統，結果卻引來更大的外患與內亂；在失去克里米亞之後，烏克蘭境內烽煙四起，不同族裔的人民互相憎恨、殘殺。街頭運動絕不是民主的時髦活動，當「惡」被喚醒之後，沒人收拾得了；而台灣的街頭，卻似乎正朝那裡走去。

台灣政經皆沉痾甚深，這需要積極思考解決之道，而不只是上街說「不」。