The Sunflower Student Movement: Successful Protest, Failed Evolution

The Sunflower Student Movement: Successful Protest, Failed Evolution
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 18, 2015

Executive Summary: Last March 18, opponents of the STA occupied the legislature. Today is the one year anniversary of that occupation, commonly known as the Sunflower Student Movement. The occupation impacted people. It sent political, social, and economic shockwaves throughout Taiwan, and led to the year end KMT election debacle. Today, on the one year anniversary of that event, we can evaluate it calmly and thoroughly. We can reflect on both the Sunflower Student Movements' successes and failures.

Full Text Below: 

Last March 18, opponents of the STA occupied the legislature. Today is the one year anniversary of that occupation, commonly known as the Sunflower Student Movement. The occupation impacted people. It sent political, social, and economic shockwaves throughout Taiwan, and led to the year end KMT election debacle. Today, on the one year anniversary of that event, we can evaluate it calmly and thoroughly. We can reflect on both the Sunflower Student Movements' successes and failures.

If one considers only the force and impact of a social movement, the Sunflower Student Movement was undoubtedly a success. It attracted attention from society, and established solidarity with the public. It forced those in power to make concessions. The participants demonstrated organizational skills and the ability to make transnational connections. They enabled outsiders to see the new generation's vitality and creativity. They successfully motivated the younger generation to confront the difficulties it faces. The large turnout among younger voters during the year end election, and the government's new found respect for the cyber army, were positive developments. The student movement inspired youth in Hong Kong, and ignited the flames of the Occupy Central movement as a spillover effect.

But if one considers Taiwan's democratic evolution, the student movement was a shock to the system, one that inflicted grave damage to the rule of law on Taiwan. This "youth" and "student" social movement won public sympathy. But the occupation of the legislature crossed the line for social protest by trampling over the rule of law. It laid siege to a police precint station, and turned a deaf ear to appeals to reason. Under the guise of a moral crusade, it endangered the public through institutional paralysis. A closer look tells all. Many of those directing the student movement from behind the scenes, were members of the DPP inner circle. The  students may not have felt used. But subsequent developments showed that they were. The DPP effortlessly reaped the fruits of the student movement, as evidenced by its nine in one election victory. Was this not a setback for democracy?

The 3/18 student movement was dualistic in nature, due to a combination of accidental and inevitable circumstances. At the macro level, recent youth protests around the world have all been staged events. The Sunflower Student Movement on Taiwan was of course influenced by the color revolutions in North Africa and Ukraine, and the Occupy Wall Street movement in the US. Angry youths felt the need to speak out. At the micro level, the recent economic downturn led to wage stagnation. Soaring housing prices led to a new generation suffering from "relative deprivation". As a result, the STA became a fuse that ignited younger generation collective frenzy.

But comparing the 3/18 student movement to the "color revolutions" is wrong and dangerous. The nations that underwent color revolutions were all authoritarian or totalitarian regimes which have not held elections for several decades. Taiwan is different. It may be an immature democracy, but its system is sound. In any event, the mobs that occupied government buildings in protest, trampled over democracy and the rule of law. Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York were evicted on grounds that the park needed cleaning. The Sunflower Student Movement occupied the legislature for over 20 days. Wang Jin-pyng used the occupation as a means of political retaliation, because Ma Ying-jeou accused Wang of influence peddling. Otherwise the occupation would have been impossible. Mobs occupied the Legislative Yuan, then the Executive Yuan. For them, the government and authority did not exist. Had the Executive Yuan not been cleared that night, Taiwan might well have descended into chaos. Do people really wish to see the nation brought to that level?

Taiwan society has long been happy to see people stand up and fight for their rights. The general public has long been compassionate towards the disadvantaged. But the Sunflower Student Movement resorted to illegal occupations. It took advantage of student naivete to make  extreme political demands. It undermined public authority and endangered social order. It made rational consideration of the issues impossible. The legislature is responsible for determining national policy. The mobs brought the legislature to a standstill. They then began debating national policy on the streets outside the legislature. The irony did not escape public notice. If people really think this is the way a democracy should operate, then Taiwan's democratization efforts over the past 20 years has been in vain.

So how should the public respond to the Sunflower Student Movement? The honest response is to seek solutions for low wages, high unemployment, and high prices inside the system. The honest response would be to consider the Executive Yuan sponsored "four methods to increase salaries" and Wen-Je Ko's proposal to build more social housing. A more hypocritical response would be to pay lip service to cyber army demands, but do nothing to resolve their predicament or make substantial improvements. The worst response possible would be to hail a few of the leaders as heroes, encourage them to continue their struggle, profit politically from their efforts, then ignore the younger generations' dilemma. Those who have participated involved in youth movements in the past, should recognize a selfish politician when they see one.

太陽花：成功的抗爭 失敗的演化
2015-03-18聯合報

去年三月十八日反服貿群眾占領立法院抗爭，至今屆滿周年。這場俗稱「太陽花學運」的事件，除在當時激盪人心，更對台灣政治、社會、經濟各方面都造成了衝擊，並導致國民黨去年底選舉的大敗。在事件周年回顧這場波瀾，我們不妨從比較冷靜而深刻的角度，來反省太陽花運動的得與失。

純就一場社會運動的能量與效果而言，太陽花學運無疑是成功的。它不僅吸引了社會的廣泛注目，它也獲取了許多民眾的聲援，並迫使執政者作出退讓。參與者在抗爭過程中展現組織整合、跨國連線的能力，讓外界看到新世代的活力與創意，也成功喚起社會對這一代青年困境的正視。這點，表現在去年底年輕世代的踴躍投票，以及政府重視「婉君」力量，都是正面的發展。甚至，這場學運也隱然鼓舞了香港青年的熱情，點燃了「占中」的火花，這是它的溢出效果。

但是，如果放在台灣民主的進程看，這場學運對於政治的演化卻是一顆意外的炸彈，對台灣好不容易建立的法治價值造成了嚴重破壞。原因是，這個以「青年」和「學生」面貌為表的社運，雖以其特殊的清純攫取了民眾的同情，但它採取的「占領國會」手段，卻踰越了社會抗爭的法治界線，包括後來的包圍警局及拒絕應訊等，皆有假藉抗爭的道德性來癱瘓體制的危險。深一層看，學運的幕後指導者不少是來自民進黨內外環的綠色力量，也許學生們不覺得自己受到「利用」，但後來的發展卻產生了這種效果。民進黨不費吹灰之力，僅拾取學運的落果即在九合一選舉大勝，這難道不是民主的歧路與中挫？

三一八學運之所以有這樣的「雙面性」，是時空條件碰撞的偶然與必然。從大環境看，青年抗爭是近幾年全球各地都在上演的活動，台灣的太陽花自然也是受到北非和烏克蘭的顏色革命及美國「占領華爾街」運動的啟發，覺得青年憤怒不吐不快。從小環境看，近年經濟成長的低迷導致薪資的停滯，房價的飛漲導致新世代「相對剝奪感」的惡化；於是，一個服貿協議的導火線，便引爆了青年世代的集體狂潮。

然而，把三一八學運放在「顏色革命」這樣的脈絡中類比，其實是一個錯誤而危險的思維。那些發生花朵革命或顏色革命的國家，都是數十年未曾改選的獨裁或極權體制，而台灣則是一個不成熟但體制完備的民主國家；無論如何，群眾以「占領官署」的非常手段從事抗爭，完全踰越了民主與法治。試想，即使是紐約的「占領華爾街」示威，最後也僅以「維護祖科提公園的清潔」為由，便將示威者驅逐；而太陽花學運能占領立法院達廿多日，其實是王金平藉此反擊馬英九對他的關說指控，否則絕無可能。再說，群眾在占領國會後又攻占行政院，幾乎是視政府和公權力如無物；如果當夜行政院沒有設法清場，那麼，台灣陷入無政府狀態不是沒可能的事。人們願意看到國家社會墜入那步田地嗎？

簡言之，台灣社會一向很樂於看到不同群體的群眾站出來爭取權益，一般民眾對於弱勢群體也始終懷抱同情；但是，太陽花運動訴諸非法的占領手段，藉用學生的清純挾帶偏激的政治訴求，不僅使公權力與社會秩序瀕於傾頹的險境，也導致外界無法以理性的態度探討相關問題的是非曲直。尤其諷刺的是，理當議決國家大政的立法院遭到癱瘓，大批烏合群眾卻在街道上大談國是；如果人們覺得這是一個民主國家的正常景象，那麼台灣過去廿多年的民主化努力實如付東流。

面對太陽花的怒潮，社會大眾又應如何看待？比較誠懇的辦法，應該是各界努力從制度上尋求破解低薪、高失業及高房價之道，例如行政院提出「加薪四法」、柯文哲承諾廣建社會住宅，皆在朝此方向前進。比較虛偽的應付，則是言必稱青年與「婉君」，表面上對他們爭相拉攏與呵護，卻無意對其困境作任何實質的改善。更惡劣的方式，則是將少數領袖捧為英雄，鼓動他們繼續在各個陣線進行抗爭，藉此收割自己的政治利益，卻對整個世代的處境不聞不問。曾參與那場運動的青年，應該能分辨得出自私政治人物的嘴臉吧！