Lai Ching-teh's Strongman Politics: A Crisis for Taiwan's Democracy

Lai Ching-teh's Strongman Politics: A Crisis for Taiwan's Democracy
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 15, 2015

Executive Summary: Let us not mince words. Lai Ching-teh's strongman political style has won the applause of many. This is a reaction to the Ma government's impotence. Ma Ying-jeou lacked political courage and administrative finesse. That however, does not mean we should invoke the specter of populist politics, and create a new political strongman. Can Lai Ching-teh ignore this? Can the public ignore this?

Full Text Below:

During the 1990s Taiwan underwent a quiet revolution. It established democratic institutions. But traditional cultural factors posed obstacles. The foundation remained unstable. During the past decade populism has reared its ugly head. Democratic values have been called into question. During the past two years, the Mainland Chinese political model has been affirmed by the international community. Strongman politics appears to be the new trend in global politics. Following Taiwan's nine in one elections, a wave of political strongman appeared. What effect will these strongmen have on Taiwan's democracy? That is a question well worth contemplating.

Strongman politics does not necessarily mean authoritarian rule. Rather it refers to strong-willed political leaders who distort or alter democratically enacted laws and institutions, and who are barely constrained by checks and balances. On many key issues, especially when the strongman asserts his  own will and imposes his own decisions, elected authorities and legal procedures become dead letters.

During the nine in one elections, Lai Ching-teh won by a landslide. His political star appeared to be on the rise. Lai Ching-teh assumed an obdurate “If not me, then who?” stance. Within the party, he assumed the role of an elder. He shared his experience with newly elected county chiefs and city mayors. Without the party, he relentlessly blasted Eric Chu. These political moves reflected Lai's political ambitions. He was merely following the path of least resistance. That was understandable. But following the city council speaker election Lai Ching-teh revealed the most serious defect in his character. He hijacked public opinion, imposed his personal will, ignored the coordination and compromise inherent in politics. His most serious problem was his autocratic mindset, which trampled over democracy and the rule of law.

The Tainan City Council Speaker election controversy, had its roots in Lai Ching-teh's plan to seize total control over the city council. He would not merely exclude other factions. He would reduce the Tainan City Council to a regulatory agence of Tainan City. In local government political circles Lai Ching-teh's speaker candidate was long perceived as Lai's rubber stamp. When Lai's candidate lost the election, the green camp raised a hue and cry True to form, Lai Ching-teh evaded controversy. He invoked "vote-buying" as grounds for refusing to set foot in the city council chambers. This move merely intensified his first mistake.

In theory, under local self-government, the mayor and the city council represent a separation of powers by which one branch checks the other. An elected mayor has powers. But he must be subject to city council oversight. The mayor must remain accountable to the city council. Meanwhile, the city council retains autonomy over its internal affairs. The mayor may never and must never intervene. Lai Ching-teh provoked controversy during the speaker election. As mayor, he attempted to interfere with the city council's autonomy, and dictate who would be speaker candidates. Once the speaker candidate controversy was settled, he attempted to exploit public support for him as a person to reverse the outcome of the council speaker election. This was a case of a strongman abusing this executive authority to interfere with legislative authority.

Secondly, the speaker election bribery case had yet to be prosecuted. No verdict had been rendered. No sentence had been passed. Yet Lai concluded that the new speaker was guilty. This was his pretext for boycotting the proceedings and applying pressure on the city council and the justice system. This was a case of a new strongman interfering with administrative authority, and exceeding his brief. Thirdly, and most seriously, the facts of the vote buying case have yet to be sorted out in the city council. Lai Ching-teh said he "refused to set foot in the city council." He claimed he wanted to answer directly to the public. A new strongman abused his executive authority and interfered with legislature authority. He thumbed his nose at democratic institutions and established a negative precedent for the rule of law.

Under representative politics, the public oversees local government heads through elected representatives. This is the clearly defined in the constitution and in legislation. No one may arbitrarily alter this, no matter how much popular support he may enjoy, and no matter how many votes he may have received. So-called "direct oversight by the public" and "Open Government" are merely fig leaves for new strongman politics.

New strongman politics and new populist politics are two sides of the same coin. Populism exploits the concept of public opinion to lay claim to momentary popular support, override public policy, and trample over professionalism, the reconciliation of diverse interests, the achievement of a broad consensus, democracy, and transparency in decision-making. Lai Ching-teh relied on his high numbers and strong support to throw his weight around. He relied on this foundation to implement his strongman politics. Under nascent strongman politics, "public opinion" trumps democracy and professionalism. It leaves no room for deliberation or verification. It leaves no room to question whether public opinion is merely illusory “manufactured consent.” One can forget about rational discussion and multi-party consultation in order to arrive at an optimum solution.

Lai Ching-teh's "new strongman politics" and "new populist politics" remains nascent. But the danger is already apparent. Populism is not democracy. Strongman politics is contrary to citizenship, civil society, and the new values of democracy. This new strongman politics must be checked, corrected, and challenged. If it is not, then in two or three years civic consciousness and civil society will all come to naught. It will become a shadow of its former self. Such a barren society will destroy democracy and the rule of law, and yield the poisonous fruit of new strongman politics.

Let us not mince words. Lai Ching-teh's strongman political style has won the applause of many. This is a reaction to the Ma government's impotence. Ma Ying-jeou lacked political courage and administrative finesse. That however, does not mean we should invoke the specter of populist politics, and create a new political strongman. Can Lai Ching-teh ignore this? Can the public ignore this?

社論－賴清德強人政治 是台灣民主危機
2015年01月15日 04:09
本報訊

台灣90年代完成寧靜革命，建立民主體制，但受傳統文化因素牽制，根基並不穩。近10年在民粹氛圍的衝擊下，民主的價值漸漸受到懷疑。這兩年中國模式開始受到國際社會肯定，強人政治似乎成為全球政治發展新趨勢，台灣於九合一大選後，似乎也出現了強人政治風潮，強人對台灣民主發展會產生什麼影響，值得觀察。

強人政治，未必是指獨裁專制統治，而是指政治領導人以主觀意志超越、扭曲或修改，以民主程序制定出來的法律與制度，不受或很少受到民選機關的制衡與監督，在許多重大、關鍵的事件，尤其是違逆政治領導人的意志與決策時，民選機關的決議與程序成為具文。

九合一選舉，賴清德獲得壓倒性的票數，原本就被看好的政治行情更是水漲船高，賴清德確實也擺出捨我其誰的態勢，在黨內以師長姿態，教導新科縣市長執政經驗，在黨外不斷針對朱立倫開炮，這些政治動作固然反映了賴個人的政治企圖，只要依循正道而行，原本無可厚非。但志得意滿的賴清德卻在議長選舉後暴露了他政治性格的最大問題：挾民意自重，漠視政治中必然存在的協調與妥協，更嚴重的是出於一己的意志，踐踏民主與法治。

台南市議會議長選舉的爭議，其根源在於賴清德意圖全面控制議會，不但排斥其他派系，更在客觀上使台南市議會淪為台南市政府的法規、法制局。賴清德支持的議長候選人，在其議長任內早已被地方政治圈視為賴的橡皮圖章。在賴支持人選落馬後，綠營輿論譁然，賴清德進一步迴避個人政治風格的爭議，以「賄選」為由，拒絕進入議會，這一步，更是他錯誤的進一步升級。

理論上，在地方自治制度中，府會是權力分立的制衡關係，民選市長固然有其權力，但必須受到議會的監督，市長必須向議會負責，同時議會內部事務有其自主性，市長無法也不應干預。賴清德在面對議長選舉的爭議時，首先是以市長的意志企圖干預議會自主，左右議長人選，在議長人選底定後，仍企圖以個人民意支持度為後盾，扭轉議長選舉結果，這是新強人的以行政權干預立法權。

其次，在議長賄選案未經司法審理、宣判定讞前，就自己認定新任議長涉案甚至有罪，並以此理由和政治大動作向議會與司法施壓，這是新強人的以行政權干涉、凌駕司法權。第三，最嚴重的是，賴清德以議會賄選疑案未獲澄清為理由，聲稱「不踏入議會一步」，要直接接受市民監督，這不但是新強人的以行政權踐踏、漠視立法權，更是挑戰民主機制、法治程序的惡劣示範。

須知，在代議政治下，市民透過民選民意代表來監督地方首長施政，這是憲法、法律所明確規範的，沒有任何人可以擅自改變，不論他擁有多高民意支持度、不論他曾獲得多少選票。所謂的「市民直接監督」、「開放政府」，只是新強人政治的化妝術、遮羞布。

新強人政治和新民粹政治是一體兩面。民粹就是假民意之名、挾大眾一時之間的所謂支持，凌駕與踐踏公共政策應有的專業意見呈現、利益多元折衝、廣泛凝聚共識、民主透明決策。賴清德挾高選票、高支持度而自重，更以此為基礎和後盾遂行其強人政治。而在這強人政治的醞釀、萌芽和施展過程中，「民意」，而非民主和專業，成了尚方寶劍，卻沒有空間來檢證，所謂的民意是否是虛幻的、被操作的，更遑論透過理性討論、多方論證後，找到最佳、最妥適的平衡方案。

賴清德的「新強人政治」、「新民粹政治」風格，還在萌芽之中，但是已經顯露其危害，民粹非民主，強人政治更是和公民意識、公民社會、審議民主等等新政治價值背道而馳。如果新強人政治得不到矯治、修正和挑戰，台灣這兩三年所謂的公民意識崛起，所謂的公民社會茁壯，不但將全面落空、成為虛幻，更會在這貧瘠的公民社會土壤上，成長出毀棄民主法治的新強人政治毒果。

無須諱言，賴清德的強人作風確實有不少民眾叫好，這應該是對過去馬政府執政無能的反動。馬英九缺的是政治魄力和施政手腕，但這不代表我們應該把民粹政治的幽靈喚醒，打造新政治強人。賴清德能不慎乎？民眾又豈能不慎乎？