Democratic Dysfunction Erodes Taiwan’s Institutional Advantages

Democratic Dysfunction Erodes Taiwan’s Institutional Advantages
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 16, 2014

Executive Summary: For the welfare of the people, Taiwan cannot afford to “live by democracy, only to die by democracy.” We must prove that Taiwan's democracy is more than just the Sunflower Student Movement forcibly occupying the legislature, legislators forcibly occupying the podium, backroom deals passed off as "political consultations," and the nine in one Kuomintang election defeat. Taiwan’s democracy must unite people, and save the nation. Otherwise, Taiwan's one time advantage will be gradually eroded by internal conflict.

Full Text Below:

The Mainland is touting is "constitutional rule", but the public is silent. Taiwan is touting “constitutional reform”, and the public is vocal.

But this  picture is incomplete. The two sides’ political systems are different. Consider their frameworks. The Mainland has more constitutional rule and less democracy. Taiwan has democracy, but a shaky constitution. In terms of concrete achievements, the Mainland may have less democracy, but it gets more results. Taiwan may have democracy, but fails to get results. As a result, in cross-Strait political competition, Taiwan has gradually lost its institutional advantages.

Taiwan once enjoyed "democracy and freedom" instead of "one-party dictatorship." It felt superior and confident. Now however, it has cause for concern. The "China collapse theory" has been discredited. Now the question is how a Taiwan suffering from "democratic dysfunction" can remain in coopetition with the Mainland?

Compare Taiwan’s "democracy and freedom" to the Mainland’s "one-party dictatorship." In terms of human rights, Taiwan is superior. Moreover, Taiwan's democracy is the primary lever by which it can to control cross-Strait relations. It is essential to resisting pressure from the Mainland. These are all advantages Taiwan has in cross-Strait relations. But democracy has malfunctioned and debilitated Taiwan. It has even made it difficult for Taiwan to contend with the Mainland. If Taiwan remains trapped in this state, it will lose its capacity to compete and respond. The outlook is grim.

Consider the political aspect. The Mainland’s constitutional rule means adhering to a Communist dictatorship. Such constitutional rule violates human rights and democratic ideals. Yet somehow its record has been exemplary. By contrast, Taiwan's constitutional rule has led to divisions even on the issue of national identity. The constitution has been amended seven times. Currently, yet another amendment is being proposed. Furthermore, Taiwan's constitutional difficulties involve far more than constitutional provisions. For example, the Legislative Yuan's "political consultations" amount to fake democracy and has destroyed the constitutional principle of majority rule. This amounts to democracy without constitutional rule.

Consider the economic aspect. The Mainland’s one-party dictatorship turns industries into caged birds. To adjust salaries, they issue an executive order forcing those with high salaries to accept pay cuts and those with low salaries to receive pay raises. When they wish to participate in FTAs, they can ignore complaints from "vulnerable industries." By contrast, Taiwan's democracy has made nuclear energy policy untenable, brought the petrochemical industry to its knees, and made industrial policy indecipherable. It has made free markets and liberalization impossible. The only way to raise wages is "moral suasion." As a result, economic policy debates often become "struggle sessions” to denounce government that never establish any sound goals, strategies, or policy paths. Compare the two sides’ frameworks. Three characteristics stand out. One. The Mainland enjoys an "autocratic advantage." Taiwan must endure a "democratic burden." Two. The Mainland enjoys a "space advantage." The Wenzhou earthquake was merely a regional earthquake. But the 9/21 earthquake shook the entire island of Taiwan. On Taiwan, a single Wen Lin-yuan event turns into an island-wide trend. But on the Mainland, “nail house” protests are merely local events. Three. The Mainland enjoys a "demographic advantage." It is the world's factory to the world market. Both exports and domestic demand make full use of the economies of scale provided by 1.3 billion people. If Taiwan throws its doors open, it will become a “shallow dish economy” due to its small population.

Compare the two systems. On the Mainland authoritarian politics dominates economics. The economy in turn bolsters authoritarian politics. This is the “economic coopetition controlling political opposition" approach that Xi Jinping adopted at Yanqi during ECFA. It reflects the domestic and foreign benefits of political and economic synergy. By contrast, Taiwan’s economic growth remains hobbled by democratic politics. The sluggish economy in turn undermines democracy. For example, the Sunflower Student Movement describes itself as a democratic movement. But its proposed political program opposes market freedom by obstructing the STA, MTA, and FEPZs. Is this either reasonable or practical?

The Mainland’s one-party dictatorship can be criticized from a civilizational perspective. But the “China collapse theory" is seldom heard these days. The entire world is wondering how to respond to the Mainland’s "autocratic advantage, space advantage, and demographic advantage.” The Mainland’s performance record has been exemplary. By contrast, as mentioned earlier, Taiwan's democracy and freedom enjoy an advantage in terms of human rights. Democracy is also the most important political lever by which Taiwan can counter the Mainland. But "democratic dysfunction" threatens the survival of democracy and the nation’s strategic advantage. Democracy incites social unrest, but cannot solve the nation’s problems.

Taiwan, of course, should adhere to its democratic institutions in cross-Strait relations. But Taiwan's democracy can no longer resort to inciting social divisions as means of seizing power during elections. It must offer ways to save the nation. The Mainland uses its dictatorship to create a record of achievements. Taiwan must be able to use its democracy to create a record of achievements. "Democratic dysfunction" will make reversing long term deterioration in the cross-Strait situation difficult.

For the welfare of the people, Taiwan cannot afford to “live by democracy, only to die by democracy.” We must prove that Taiwan's democracy is more than just the Sunflower Student Movement forcibly occupying the legislature, legislators forcibly occupying the podium, backroom deals passed off as "political consultations," and the nine in one Kuomintang election defeat. Taiwan’s democracy must unite people, and save the nation. Otherwise, Taiwan's one time advantage will be gradually eroded by internal conflict.

民主失能 台灣的體制優勢正在流失
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.12.16 02:13 am

北京高舉「依憲治國」，萬馬齊瘖；台灣正醞釀修憲，眾議紛紜。

一斑窺豹，兩岸政治體制的差異立現。就架構言，北京可謂「憲政」穩固而少「民主」，台灣則是有「民主」而「憲政」動盪；再就政績言，則北京可謂少「民主」而有「績效」，台灣則是有「民主」而無「績效」。於是，若從「政治體制競賽」的角度看兩岸情勢，台灣的體制優勢似在逐漸流失。

過去，台灣向有「民主自由」較「一黨專政」優越的光榮感與自信心。但如今值得憂慮的卻是：如果「中國崩潰論」已漸漸退出思考可及的時間範圍，「民主失能」的台灣要如何與中國大陸維持平衡的競合關係？

台灣的「民主自由」，相較於北京的「一黨專政」，在人權理念層次當然比較優越。而且，台灣的民主政治是節制兩岸關係的主要槓桿，非此無以抵拒北京的壓力。這些因素，皆曾是台灣在兩岸關係中的優勢。但是，這套民主體制因實踐上的「失能」，已逐漸成為耗弱台灣的因素，甚至使台灣陷於難以抗衡北京的困局。台灣若繼續陷此狀態，將失去兩岸競合的因應能力，前景堪虞。

先從政治面看。例如，北京的「依憲治國」，就是「堅持共產黨專政」，此種「憲政」在人權或民主理念上誠受批評，卻產生了如臂使指的治理績效。相對的，台灣的「憲政」連國家認同都呈現撕裂，且經歷七次修憲的憲法，如今又聞修憲之議。再者，台灣的憲政操作問題，遠較憲法條文的問題更嚴重；例如，立法院的「政黨協商」，假「民主」之名摧毀了「多數治理」的憲政原則，這不啻是有民主而無憲政。

再從經濟面看。例如，北京的一黨專政，要產業轉型就騰籠換鳥，要調節分配就以行政命令強制高薪者減薪、低薪者加薪，要參與ＦＴＡ也聽不到「弱勢產業」的聲音。相對的，台灣的民主體制，使核能政策站不住、石化工業起不來，產業政策莫衷一是，自由開放陷於自相矛盾，要加薪則只能「道德勸說」。於是，經濟政策的辯論往往淪為「罵政府」的比賽，卻始終無以建立目標、策略與路徑。

兩岸的體制對比，約有三項特徵：一、北京有「專制紅利」，台灣卻有「民主負荷」。二、北京有「空間紅利」，汶川地震只是區域事件，但一個九二一地震卻幾使台灣動搖國本；在台灣，一個文林苑事件演成全國風潮，但大陸上的釘子戶皆是地方事件。三、北京有「人口紅利」，自世界工廠到世界市場、自外銷到內需，皆可運用十三億人口的規模條件，大開大闔，台灣則因人口規模小而成淺碟經濟。

由於此種體制對比，北京是以專制政治主導經濟，再以經濟支撐專制政治。此由習近平在雁棲湖ＥＣＦＡ「以經濟競合操作政治對抗」的手法，即可概見其政經相輔相成的內外效益。相對而言，台灣則陷於民主政治攪亂經濟發展，經濟遲滯又回頭攪亂了民主政治的困境。例如，太陽花事件即使自譽為民主表現，但其提出的政經方案卻是封殺服貿、貨貿及自由經濟示範區，是否合理可行？

大陸「一黨專政」的體制，在文明理念上自可批評，但如今卻已罕聞「中國崩潰論」之說，而全世界皆在思考該如何因應在「專制紅利／空間紅利／人口紅利」上表現出高度績效的北京政權。相對而言，如前所述，台灣的民主自由在人權理念上當然比較優越，且民主政治亦是台灣賴以與大陸抗衡的最重要的政治槓桿；但是，「民主失能」已使民主與國家的生存戰略剝離，「民主」只能掀起社會風潮，卻不能解決國家的問題。

台灣當然仍應以民主體制來維持兩岸競合關係。但台灣的民主政治，不能再以撕裂為手段，不可只知選舉奪權，卻提不出救國方案；也就是說，面對以「專政建立政績」的北京，台灣必須能「以民主建立政績」，「失能的民主」將難以扭轉兩岸消長情勢的繼續惡化。

為人民福祉計，台灣不可自陷「成也民主／敗也民主」的悖論。我們必須證明：台灣的民主政治，除了太陽花占據立法院、立委霸占主席台、「政黨協商」，及使國民黨九合一大敗之外，我們還能團結國人，共策救國方案。否則，台灣原本具有的民主體制優勢，因內耗空轉，正在逐漸流失之中。