We Welcome the Sunflower Student Movement into the System

We Welcome the Sunflower Student Movement into the System
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 17, 2015

Executive Summary: The Sunflower Student Movement has ended. Student leaders and closely linked citizens' groups are licking their lips as they gear up for the elections. The Sunflower Student Movement leaders have the passion and determination to foment revolution. They think and act outside the system. They have no shortage of revolutionary policy ideas. But no matter how passionate their battle cries, participating in elections amounts to recognition of the system. It means accepting reform within the system instead of protesting the system from without. It means seeking the most votes, rather than recruiting most revolutionary-minded comrades.

Full Text Below:

Tomorrow is the first anniversary of the Sunflower Student Movement. One year ago, the leaders of the student movement stormed the legislature. But even they probably did not realize that they had just started the largest student movement in Taiwan's history. The impact was a political tsunami that altered Taiwan's political stage and political atmosphere.

The Sunflower Student Movement did not materialize suddenly out of nowhere. It originated with interpersonal relations and shared ideological perspectives. It originated with opposition to the demolition and relocation of Ta Pu, and opposition to the Want Daily/China Times news organization. The flames of this increasingly politicized student movement originally belonged to a social movement. But they were vigorously fanned until they became a political movement for a specific political party.

Consider the broader social context. When Ma Ying-jeou took office in 2008, the two sides of the Strait began formal negotiations. Following a brief slump, the defeated DPP launched a new “anti-China” opposition movement. The anti-China sentiments of the DPP and its allies was cloaked in the rhetoric of "democracy, human rights, and social justice". But their real motivation was "Taiwan independence consciousness, Taiwanese consciousness, and anti-KMT consciousness". This opposition force advanced on the KMT. The Ma Ying-jeou government's cross-Strait rationale was rooted in economic interests and Taiwan's survival and prosperity. But cold economic data and remote international issues, invoked by ivory tower bureaucrats, failed to impress. They were no match for feelings and emotions.

After five or six years of agitation and ferment, the conditions for the Sunflower Student Movement were ripe. The Ma vs. Wang power struggle divided the KMT. The administration and the legislature could not work together. Ruling party rifts stalled the STA. Flames from the student movement spread upwards through the political cracks, eventually erupting into full scale student protests and civic movements. Recall the connivance of those in charge of the Legislative Yuan. Recall the political calculations of Ma and Wang -- their moves and counter moves. Under normal circumstances, as soon as the students stormed the legislature, they would have been immediately expelled. They would never have been able to continue their occupation and receive endless outside aid. The sunflower would never have bloomed.

Sunflower Student Movement influence is significant. Is that influence positive or negative? No matter. Either way, it was a rebellion of Taiwan's younger generation. It was a generational rebellion. Active participants in the student movement were mostly in the 20 to 40 age group. The Sunflower Student Movement was their movement. Movemetn leaders were actually quite opaque in their decision-making. The vast majority of participants were not privy to the “inner circle”. Nevertheless they became enthusiastic participants. They protested, attacked, propagandized, maintained discipline, cleaned, administered medical care, and learned by example. The manner in which they participated in the adult world has been heavily criticized. But in the passion and collective memory is unquestionably theirs.

These passions and memories have altered Taiwan's political landscape for the next 20 or 30 years. Many examples illustrate this point. Take Wen-Je Ko, for example. He said that before the student movement, he was only slightly ahead in the polls. After the student movement, the gap between him and Sean Lien widened significantly. Polls show that the younger generation supported Wen-Je Ko three to five times more than Sean Lien. As we all know, the KMT suffered an unprecedented defeat during last year's nine in one elections. The Taipei mayoral battle highlighted a key factor – the ideological and physical aging of the KMT. The Taipei mayoral election was closely watched and played a decisive role. The Sunflower Student Movement will continue to impact Taiwan's political landscape. Wen-Je Ko illustrates this point.

Equally important is the matter of cross-Strait relations. The media concluded that once the student movement blocked trade negotiations on the STA and MTA, the Ma Xi meeting was probably a bust. The Sunflower Student Movement interrupted Ma Ying-jeou's “[Mainland] China agenda." . If this agenda was Ma's personal agenda, it would not be a matter of importance. But this agenda is critical to Taiwan's survival and prosperity. Did the Sunflower Student Movement have any positive value? Perhaps it reminded leaders on both sides that fairness and justice are important. Emotional factors must also be considered. That said, we must ask the younger generation on Taiwan, what constitutes a reasonable cross-Strait policy? What is the proper balance between economic benefits, social justice, dignity, and sovereignty? This is the first anniversary of the Sunflower Student Movement, But society has yet to reach a consensus on these key issues. Obviously election season will lead to even greater divisions. Such divisions are not to Taiwan's benefit. When can we finally approach these questions calmly and peacefully?

The Sunflower Student Movement has ended. Student leaders and closely linked citizens' groups are licking their lips as they gear up for the elections. The Sunflower Student Movement leaders have the passion and determination to foment revolution. They think and act outside the system. They have no shortage of revolutionary policy ideas. But no matter how passionate their battle cries, participating in elections amounts to recognition of the system. It means accepting reform within the system instead of protesting the system from without. It means seeking the most votes, rather than recruiting most revolutionary-minded comrades. Under these circumstances, Sunflower Student Movement participation in the elections means that it must become more responsible than other party factions. In particular, it must seek cooperation and compromise with voters who hold different positions. It must determine what is necessary for Taiwan's survival and prosperity. It must seek the most feasible option, rather than the most “idealistic” goal.

This is our hope for the Sunflower Student Movement on its one year anniversary.

社論－歡迎太陽花進入體制
2015年03月17日 04:10
本報訊

明天是太陽花學運1周年，那個晚上，當帶領學運的人衝進立法院時，包括他們自己在內，大概都沒有想到，不但開啟了台灣最大規模的學生運動，後續效應更如同「政治海嘯」般，嚴重衝擊並改變了台灣的政治板塊與政治氛圍。

太陽花學運不是無源之水突如其來，從人際脈絡與思想淵源來看，它來自於從反大埔拆遷、反旺中等議題以來，一系列越來越政治化的學生運動，這些原本屬於「社會性」的議題，在不斷延燒之下，逐漸變成了針對特定政黨的「政治性」議題。

從更寬廣的社會環境來觀察，2008年馬英九執政後，開啟了兩岸正式談判協商，民進黨則在重挫敗選後，經過短暫的低潮，開啟了以「反傾中」、「反親中」為號召的新「反對運動」。民進黨及其周邊團體的「反傾中」、「反親中」論述，是以「台獨意識」、「台灣人意識」、「反國民黨意識」為核心，卻包裝上「民主」、「人權」、「社會公義」外衣。面對反對勢力的進逼，國民黨、馬英九政府的兩岸論述向來是「經濟利益」掛帥，間或談台灣的生存發展空間，但冰冷的經濟數據和遙遠的國際議題，從不食人間煙火的政府官僚口中說出，總是無法打動人心，無法和情感與情緒對抗。

經過了5、6年的激盪與醞釀，爆發太陽花學運的客觀形勢已經營造成熟，國民黨卻在「馬王政爭」後，陷入嚴重的實質分裂，府院國會之間無法通力合作。執政裂痕不但造成服貿協議遲遲無法過關，學運的火苗更立刻從政治縫隙向上延燒，最後成為波瀾壯闊的大型學潮與公民運動。我們可以反向思考，如果不是立法院主事者的縱容，以及馬王之間的政治計算與攻防，在通常情況下，學運學生在衝進立法院之後，應該會立即遭到驅離，完全不會存在占領議場以及外援源源不絕的景況，太陽花也就沒有綻放的機會。

太陽花學運的影響是重大的，首先，不論其是正是負，但這確實是一場台灣年輕世代的總反叛，是「整個世代的反叛」。積極參與學運的成員，多是以20至40歲年齡層為主的年輕人，太陽花學運確實是他們的運動。他們當中，由少數人擔任領袖，進行實際上極為封閉的決策，絕大多數參與者無緣進入議場，卻依然成為積極的成員：抗議、出擊、宣傳、維安、清潔、醫護、學習等等都是他們參與的方式，成人世界對他們有很多批評，但無論如何，這是那個世代的激情，那個世代的共同記憶。

也正是這樣的激情與記憶，台灣政局因而大大改變，更可能影響未來至少20年、30年的台灣政治，很多例子可以說明這一點。以柯文哲為例，他自己曾表示，在學運之前，民調支持度僅微幅領先；在學運之後，他與連勝文的差距明顯拉大，各家民調更顯示，柯文哲在年輕世代的支持度竟以3到5倍的幅度超越連勝文。眾所周知，去年九合一大選，國民黨之所以空前的慘輸，台北市長一戰凸顯國民黨在思想與體質上的老化，是關鍵因素之一。台北市長這個職務，動見觀瞻，舉足輕重，太陽花學運對台灣政治格局的衝擊，顯然將會持續發酵，柯P熱正說明了這一點。

同樣重要的課題是兩岸關係，有媒體評論認為，在學運之後，服貿協議擱置、貨貿談判達成遙遙無期，馬習會更已破局，太陽花學運已中斷了馬英九的「中國議程」。然而，如果只是馬英九個人的中國議程，那還是小問題，真正大的問題在「台灣生存發展的議程」。在這方面，太陽花學運若說有正面價值，那就是再度提醒兩岸領導層：公平正義的議題極其重要，情感情緒的因素也需要更為重視，但即使如此，我們仍要追問：對台灣年輕世代來說，什麼是合理、妥適的兩岸議程？什麼是經濟利益、社會公義和主權尊嚴與主體意識的平衡點？這個大哉問，在太陽花學運1周年後，社會仍然沒有共識，很明顯地還會因為選舉熱季而更為撕裂，但這樣的撕裂終究不是台灣之福，我們究竟要何時才能冷靜、持平的深入探討？

從這個角度而來的延伸思考是，在太陽花學運之後，學生領袖以及和他們有密切連結的公民團體與相關人士正摩拳擦掌準備投入選舉。乍看之下，太陽花學運的主導者曾經有「革命」的激情與決心，有「體制外抗爭」的思維與行動，更不缺革命性質的政策主張，但參與選舉就不是搞革命，無論再怎麼激情吶喊，參選就等同對現有體制的承認，基本邏輯就是「體制內改革」而非體制外抗爭，是爭取最多民眾選票，而非發掘最多革命同志。在這樣的前提下，太陽花學運主事者的參選或許有其積極意義，那就是必須更負責任地和其他黨派、尤其是不同立場的選民共謀合作、妥協，找出現實「台灣生存發展議程」的最可行方案，而非理想中的最美好方案。

在太陽花學運1周年之際，我們有這樣的期盼。