Reform Motivated by Political Calculation is Merely Running in Place

Reform Motivated by Political Calculation is Merely Running in Place
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 25th, 2014

Executive Summary: Taiwan's ruling and opposition parties must not resort to short-term political calculations to increase party power and party interests. We know that such appeals may not move politicians. Only peoples' votes can prevent political parties from considering only their partisan advantage and ignoring the public welfare. Only peoples' votes have a chance to trump politicians' political calculations. Only then can the system benefit from the "veil of ignorance” and ensure impartial conduct and long term stability. Only then can genuine reform promote the welfare of the people. Reform motivated by political calculation is not reform. It is merely running in place.

Full Text Below:

"Which system is best?" That is the question American political philosopher John Rawls and John Harsanyi asked in 1994. Harsayi won the Nobel Prize in economics for his studies in game theory. He and Rawls co-sponsored the concept of the "veil of ignorance". According to this concept, which political system people prefer is based on vested interests and potential benefits. We must assume that everyone in the community has the same chance as everyone else, then ask ourselves, "Do I want such a system?" Unfortunately, the "veil of ignorance" seldom manifests itself on Taiwan's political stage. Over the years, reforms have invariably been based on political calculation. Three recent incidents confirm this.

One. Take the county chiefs and city mayors election “ballot flashing” question. Should council members flash their ballots? Should they be permitted to flash their ballots? This brings us back to the "veil of ignorance" question we discussed earlier. The answer should be clear. But politicians persist in making political calculations. During the nine in one county chiefs and city mayors elections, the DPP said it instructed council members to flash their ballots to prevent the speaker from engaging in vote buying. This is upside down logic. In the past, the DPP invoked legislative consent and stopped KMT legislators from flashing their ballots. Did they do this to prevent vote buying? The most absurd rationalization was offered by DPP legislator Tuan Yi-kang, in a FaceBook comment, "The DPP has been totally consistent. Current advocacy of ballot flashing and past opposition to ballot flashing, are responses to society's demands for social justice."

Tuan Yi-kang's implication was that the DPP invoked legislative consent and stopped KMT legislators from flashing their ballots because the KMT nominee was not  a worthy candidate. Conversely, when the DPP demanded ballot flashing during the DPP chairperson election, it was because the DPP nominee was a worthy candidate. Are we to understand that democracy means the DPP must win, and that only a DPP candidate can be a worthy candidate? What is this, if not George Orwell's "Four legs good, two legs bad" from "Animal Farm?" Why not repeal every law on Taiwan, leaving only the one proviso, "DPP good, KMT bad”?

The KMT is not that much better. In respons to legislative consent, it did everything possible to flash ballots. Now it acts aggrieved and calls ballot flashing during the DPP chairperson election a case of "double standards." But how much sympathy can such a complaint garner? Is the DPP the only party that practiced double standards? Is the answer really so difficult? Article 44 of the "Local System Act" clearly states in black and white that local village, township, and municipal elections shall "employ secret ballot to elect or impeach." The answer is simple. The ruling and opposition parties simply ignore it based on their own political calculations.

Take another example. Should the 2016 presidential and legislative elections be merged into one single election? DPP Secretary-General Wong Chin-chu studied the 2012 elections before arriving at a decision. He then held a press conference and declared that merging the two elections could lead to an “untended window,” a gap when no one is in charge. He said "The ruling party is pushing hard for a merger only because it wants to strike while the iron is hot." But following the DPP's victory in the nine in one elections, DPP momentum was at a peak. DPP spokesman Hsu Chia-ching said, "In order to conserve the nation's resources, merging the two elections is makes more sense, and would avoid wasting public funds."

What system is best has a simple answer. Is the motive to save public funds? Is it to avoid an untended window? In the eyes of both political parties, it all boils down to whether the coat tails effect is beneficial or detrimental to its partisan interests. If the coat tails effect is beneficial to a party, it will favor a merger. If the coat tails effect is detrimental, it will oppose any such merger. Once again, political calculations override the rule of law. Political parties opt for merged or separate elections based solely on which enhances its election prospects, rather than the long-term stability of the system.

A third example concerns constitutional issues. During the Ma administration, DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen repeatedly demanded constitutional changes, including voting age changes, increased legislative seats, mixed-member proportional representation for the legislature, and lowered thresholds to achieve official political party status. But upon winning the nine in one elections, the chances of the Democratic Progressive Party winning the 2016 president election dramatically increased. The DPP's constitutional reform posture suddenly turned conservative. The KMT, which dragged its feet and evaded constitutional issues, suddenly turned reformist. Eric Chu announced that as party chairman his starting position would be to favor constitutional reform. He advocated adopting a cabinet system. This flip-flopping farce has been enacted on a variety of issues. If every reform attempt degenerates into a political power struggle, how can Taiwan's political system possibly evolve?

We hope that Taiwan's ruling and opposition parties will value sustainable development, keep the people's long-term interests in mind, and discuss systemic reform. They must not resort to short-term political calculations to increase party power and party interests. We know that such appeals may not move politicians. Only peoples' votes can prevent political parties from considering only their partisan advantage and ignoring the public welfare. Only peoples' votes have a chance to trump politicians' political calculations. Only then can the system benefit from the "veil of ignorance” and ensure impartial conduct and long term stability. Only then can genuine reform promote the welfare of the people.

Reform motivated by political calculation is not reform. It is merely running in place.

社論－政治算計的改革只是籠中鼠跑步
2014年12月25日 04:09
本報訊

「什麼樣的制度是最好的制度？」是美國政治哲學家羅爾斯與1994年因博弈理論獲得諾貝爾經濟學獎的約翰海薩尼，共同提出「無知之幕」中的概念。每一個人對制度的偏好，都依據自己的既得利益及潛在利益考量，因此，我們應該假設自己有平等的機率成為社會上的每一個人，然後問自己：「我想要什麼樣的制度？」很可惜的，這個「無知之幕」在台灣的政治世界似乎鮮少存在。多年來，制度改革始終被扭曲成一場又一場「有知算計」的政治角力。我們從最近的3件事就可以看出。

第一件是在縣市議長選舉可不可以亮票的問題。該不該亮票、可不可以亮票？本應回歸「無知之幕」的制度討論，是與非的答案應該很清楚，卻仍演變政治人物「有知算計」的互鬥。九合一後登場的縣市議長選舉，民進黨說，要求議員亮票，是為了避免議長買票，這個邏輯反面過來，豈不意謂民進黨過去阻止立法院行使監委同意權投票時國民黨立委亮票，就是要助長買票？最最荒謬的詮釋首推民進黨立委段宜康的臉書的發言：「民進黨前後標準一致：現在的強制亮票和此前的拒絕亮票，都是為了符合社會期待的公義。」

段宜康的意思似乎是，民進黨阻止國民黨立委在監委同意權中亮票，是因為國民黨提名的監委人選是不公義的；民進黨議員必須在議長選舉中亮票，是因為民進黨提名的議長人選是公義的。難道民主的意思是民進黨作主才算數嗎？如果只有民進黨的作為才是公義的，那是不是仿效歐威爾筆下的《動物農莊》的第一律：「四足為善，二足為惡」，把台灣的法律都廢除，只留下「民進黨為善，國民黨為惡」一條規定即可？

國民黨也不遑多讓，在監委同意權行使時千方百計的想亮票，現在則滿腹冤屈的回頭罵民進黨在議長選舉亮票是「雙重標準」，這樣的冤屈，能博得多少同情？雙重標準的豈只有民進黨？制度的答案有這麼難嗎？《地方制度法》第44條白紙黑字規定的清清楚楚，地方議長、鄉鎮市代主席的選舉，「以無記名投票分別互選或罷免之」。只是這簡單至極的答案，在朝野政黨政治算計的眼中看不到。

另一個例子，是2016年的總統與立委選舉要不要合併投票的問題。在研究2012年選舉應否併選時，當時的民進黨書記長翁金珠曾召開記者會表示，併選可能會有憲政空窗期，「執政黨硬推合併選舉根本是『橫柴入灶』。」然而，九合一大勝後，民進黨挾著勝選氣勢，民進黨發言人徐佳青說：「基於國家資源的利用，合併選舉應是較合理的作法，以免浪費國家公帑。」

制度問題的本質本來應該很單純，究竟該節省國家公帑，還是避免過長的空窗？但在政黨眼中，由於併選會有母雞帶小雞或者反過來說母雞害小雞的效應。對於母雞較強的一方，會比較期待併選，相反的母雞弱的一方則比較不傾向併選。於是政治算計又再度凌駕制度討論，政黨看的是併選或不併選，哪一個選項對自己政黨的勝選有幫助，而不是長治久安的制度。

第三個例子發生在修憲議題上。馬總統執政期間，民進黨主席蔡英文屢屢拋出修憲主張，包括投票年齡下修、增加立委席次、立委選制改成聯立制、政黨門檻下修。但當九合一勝選後，外界評估民進黨2016年總統的勝選機率增加，民進黨對修憲態度轉趨保守，反倒是過去對修憲議題一直拖延閃躲的國民黨，朱立倫宣布參選黨主席的起手式卻是修憲，主張應改採內閣制。這種立場不斷互換的荒謬劇，在各種制度改革議題上跳躍上演，如果每個制度改革議題，都變成政黨爭權的角力場，台灣的制度還有進步的可能嗎？

我們希望朝野政黨應以台灣永續發展、人民長期利益為念，討論制度的革新，不能也不應用短線政治算計圖謀一黨之權與一黨之私。我們深知，這樣的呼籲對政治人物不一定管用，只有人民的選票才能約束政黨不可只看黨私，不問公益，只有人民的選票才有機會打破政治人物的「有知算計」，然後，制度議題才有可能在「無知之幕」下，中立公正的進行以國家長治、人民福祉為唯一目的的真正改革。

政治算計的改革不是改革，只是老鼠在籠子裡跑步。