Cross-Strait Political Systems Can Merge

Cross-Strait Political Systems Can Merge
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 17, 2014

Executive Summary: Political systems are dynamic. They are constantly in development. Neither Taiwan style democracy nor Mainland style democracy are all good or all bad. What is needed is communication between the two sides. They can fill each others' gaps. They must tolerate each other, and learn from each other, while moving forward, toward eventual reintegration.

Full Text Below: 
 
The Mainland's Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman Fan Liqing has commented once again on President Ma Ying-jeou's Double Ten speech. Fan Liqing told reporters that the Mainland authorities resolutely oppose his comments about the Mainland's political system and Hong Kong's political reform. Fan Liqing stressed that "The two sides of the Strait have chosen different paths for their political development. We respect our Taiwan compatriots' social system and lifestyle choices." Fan Liqing said: "As for Taiwan's political path and social and political stability, and its impact on economic development, we have no comment. But we hope that the Taiwan side respects the choices and goals of the Mainland's 1.3 billion people."

Fan Liqing was quite blunt. In particular, her "no comment" response regarding the influence of Taiwan's political development, was obviously no affirmation. She implied that it was "not appreciated." Apparently Ma's evaluation of the value of Hong Kong's political reform, the Occupy Central movement, and the political differences between the Mainland, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, has morphed into criticism of Taiwan style democracy.

Democracy means rule by the people. This contrasts with handing power over to a single individual. Democracy means handing the power to rule over to a majority of the people. Ancient Chinese tribal communities often featured collective decision-making. They had ancient city-state political participation by citizens in addition to traditional aristocratic republics. During the Sui and Tang Dynasties, during the Middle Ages, and even during the Qing dynasty, the nobility governed collectively. Limits on absolute monarchy were an important part of the Chinese political system. All these were forms of democracy or seeds of democracy.

The KMT era Nationalist Government and the revolutionary era, founding era, or ruling era Communist Party, are all believers in, and practioners of, democracy. They merely had their own interpretation of what democracy meant. They may not be the same as Western liberal democracy. In fact, many Western champions of liberal democracy agree that "Democracy is not perfect, but it is the best of all known systems. "

The success or failure of Western liberal democracy was a major point of debate, especially during the Cold War. It was one of the core issues of East-West ideological confrontation. Following the implosion of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in 1989, renowned Western scholar Frances Fukuyama advanced his "End of History" thesis. He declared that the birth of liberal democracy marked the end of history. There would never be any better solution than democracy.

But the failure of traditional Soviet totalitarian socialism in Eastern Europe does no imply the success of Western liberal democracy. From 1989 to the present, the United States and Great Britain have waged numerous wars. The impact of the financial crisis, the increasing wealth disparity, the untoward influence and relentless expansion of multinational corporations and financial conglomerates, along with political unrest in many countries, have made more and more people question the superiority of Western liberal democracy.

Fukuyama himself has apparently modified his position. Three years ago he published a book entitled "Political Order and Political Decline: From the Industrial Revolution to Democratic Globalization." He stressed that democracy is only one part of political stability. If one errs, democracy can also be a factor leading to instability. His core argument was that a sound social order requires three conditions: Strong government, the Rule of Law, and democratic accountability. Fukuyama stressed that all three are indispensable.

Fukuyama offered a standard by which to evaluate political system success or failure. He pointed out that colonial rule in India had the rule of law and democratic accountability. Of course, the rule of law in India was often rendered ineffective by the shortcomings of bureaucracy. Democracy, meanwhile, is often confusing and tedious. On the other hand, India's central government is relatively weak. Fukuyama believes that India meets two of his three conditions. He thinks it is not that bad, but also not quite a success.

Let us evaluate Taiwan using Fukuyama's three conditions. Taiwan boasts the rule of law and democratic accountability. But it has much room for improvement. On the other hand, we lack a strong government. This has seriously undermined political and social stability and economic development. This is the biggest problem with Taiwan style democracy. Meanwhile, as Fukuyama points out, the Mainland has a strong central government -- a legacy of its imperial history. But it definitely needs to improve its rule of law and democratic accountability.

Comparing the two sides of the Strait provides us with food for thought regarding out political direction. One. We have often said that the economic division between the two sides is complementary and mutually beneficial. According to Fukuyama's three conditions, the two sides' political systems and political modernization complement each other. They facilitate learning from each other. Two. Many people ignore the role of strong government as a positive factor in Taiwan's economic development. Many hold different views on the matter. Taiwan's successful economic development was not the result of neoliberal economics' free economy and private property. Rather, it was the result of economic planning, state-owned enterprises, foreign exchange controls, and other policies. Three. The Mainland has a strong government. The Mainland is actually promoting democratic accountability and the rule of law from a relatively solid foundation, enabling it to remain stable while gradually moving forward.

Political systems are dynamic. They are constantly in development. Neither Taiwan style democracy nor Mainland style democracy are all good or all bad. What is needed is communication between the two sides. They can fill each others' gaps. They must tolerate each other, and learn from each other, while moving forward, toward eventual reintegration.

社論－兩岸政治制度可以互補融一
2014年10月17日 04:10
本報訊

大陸國台辦發言人范麗青再度針對馬英九總統的雙十講話若干內容「再次做出評價」。范麗青在接受記者提問時「對（雙十）講話中有關大陸政治體制和香港政改的言論，表明了我們（大陸方面）堅決反對的態度」。范麗青強調，「兩岸選擇了不同的政治發展道路。台灣同胞對於社會制度和生活方式的選擇，我們予以尊重。」但另一方面，范麗青也說：「對於台灣政治發展道路對其自身社會政治穩定、經濟發展帶來什麼影響，我們無意評論。」，「但希望台灣方面尊重大陸13億人民的選擇和追求」。

范麗青的話說得比較重，尤其她說，她對台灣政治發展道路的影響「無意評論」，這個「無意評論」很明顯帶有「不肯定」、「不欣賞」的意味。看來，從香港政改爭議、占中運動評價，兩岸三地之間的政治歧見，已經演變成對台式民主的評價問題。

如果「民主」意味著「由人民統治」，或者相對於「將權力交給單一個人」，是「將統治權力交給多數人」，中國古代也有部落共同體的集體決策，有上古城邦時代的「國人」參政議政，以及貴族共和的傳統。到了中古隋唐時代，甚至清朝初年，貴族共同議政、限制君主專制仍然是中國政治制度與運作中的重要組成部分，這些都屬於「民主」的範疇，或者說是民主的萌芽。

不管是國民政府時期的國民黨，或是從革命到建國、執政的共產黨，都自居是民主的信奉者、實踐者，只不過對民主有各自的詮釋，也未必能等同於西方自由民主制。事實上，很多西方自由民主制的支持者，也都認同一句老話：「民主並非盡善盡美，但卻是所有已知制度中最好的。」

西方自由民主制的優劣成敗，曾經是爭論的大焦點，尤其在冷戰時代，是東西方意識形態對立的核心課題之一。「蘇東波」之後，知名的西方學者法蘭西斯．福山在1989年曾提出「歷史終結論」的說法，宣稱自由民主制的誕生代表歷史的終結，沒有比民主更好的方案。

然而，傳統蘇聯東歐集權社會主義的失敗，無法直接等同於西方自由民主制度的成功，從1989年到現在，由於美英集團發動的幾次戰爭，金融危機的衝擊，社會貧富差距的不斷拉大，跨國公司和金融財團的支配力量膨脹，以及許多國家的政治騷亂，越來越多人質疑西方自由民主制的優越性。

如今，福山本人也出現了論點的調整，3年前他出版的《政治秩序和政治衰落：從工業革命到民主全球化》一書，強調「民主制度始終只不過是政治穩定的一個組成部分。在錯誤的情況下，民主制度也可能成為引發不穩定的因素。」核心論點是：一個秩序良好的社會需要三個構成要素：「強有力的政府」、「法治」和「民主問責」，同樣重要的是，福山強調「三者缺一不可」。

福山提供了一個標準讓我們來檢視政治制度的良窳，他自己就曾指出印度因殖民統治的歷史而擁有了「法治」和「民主問責」（當然印度的法治往往有官僚主義和效率低下的缺點，而民主常常是「混亂和繁瑣的」），另一方面，印度中央政府的權威卻相對較弱。福山認為印度在他提的三條件中滿足了兩個，「算不上很差，但也遠未大功告成。」

由「福山三條件」看台灣，我們可以說台灣的「法治」和「民主問責」初步建立了起來，當然有很多需要改進調整的空間，但另一方面，我們卻缺乏一個「強政府」，嚴重影響了政治社會的穩定和經濟發展的方向與速度。這是「台式民主」的大問題、大難題。另一方面，如同福山指出的，大陸「因其帝國歷史而擁有強大的中央政府」，但不可否認的是，在「法治」和「民主問責」方面確實是有更多改進空間。

從兩岸的對比來看，其實提供了我們進一步思考的方向。首先，過去我們常說兩岸的經濟分工是互補互利，如今從「福山三條件」來檢視，兩岸的政治制度與政治現代化的優劣在某種程度上也是可以互補、相互學習的。其次，很多人忽略了，「強政府」也曾是台灣經濟發展過程中的正面因素，和很多人認識的不同，台灣經濟發展的成功並非是基於新自由經濟學的「自由經濟」、「私有產權」，反而應該看到經濟計畫、國營事業、外匯管制等要素與政策的作用。最後，在大陸擁有「強政府」的情況下，大陸在推動「民主問責」和「法治」方面的改革其實有比較深厚的基礎與後盾，可以循序漸進、穩步向前。

政治體制是動態的、發展的，「台式民主」、「大陸式民主」沒有絕對的好或絕對的壞，需要的是交流與互補，包容與學習，共同走向未來的融一。