Democratic Civil War or Democratic Progress?

Democratic Civil War or Democratic Progress?
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 28, 2015

Executive Summary: The green camp is waging democratic civil war.The 2016 election will inevitably be a showdown between anti-China and anti-anti-China forces. On this battlefront, the KMT and those who advocate the "China concept" have no reason to shrink or retreat.

Full Text Below:

Blue vs. green political opposition and the defects of democracy have plagued Taiwan ever since democratization. Taiwan seems destined to change ruling parties every eight years. Go back seven or eight years. The Chen Shui-bian regime was neck deep in corruption. It was could not complete the nation's economic transformation. It could not narrow the nation's wealth gap, Therefore it provoked the Chinese mainland in order to win populist support on Taiwan. Democratic civil war escalated. Blue vs. green opposition intensified to unprecedented levels. The DPP went to extremes. It permitted itself to be hijacked by Taiwan independence fundamentalists and deep green media. It conducted an intraparty witch hunt for "traitors" such as Lin Cho-shui, Li Wen-chung, Julian Kuo, and the rest of the "Eleven Brigands."

Seven or eight years later, Ma Ying-jeou finds himself lost in political confusion. An election platform that stressed cross-Strait peace got him elected president twice, both times with an absolute majority. Most members of the public hoped to transcend "ethnic" politics and blue vs. green divisions. They hoped for a peaceful and stable cross-Strait environment. They hoped to focus on solving economic problems and ensuring sustainable development. But the Ma administration was surprisingly inept at domestic policy. The DPP refused to act responsibly. Instead it accused the Ma administration of "cozying up to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan". It accused it of "pandering to [Mainland] China". Alas, the KMT's debating skills were non-existent. It could not defend itself. It could not govern the nation. Peoples' livelihoods were affected. Wave upon wave of political struggle ensued. Last year's nine in one local elections were ostensibly about local governance. But the green camp argued that "Unless the KMT falls, Taiwan will not prosper". It turned the election into a one-sided democratic civil war. This civil war did not end with the KMT's election defeat and the resignation of its chairman. Instead, it escalated.

The term "democratic civil war" was coined on Taiwan. In 2005, Lee Teng-hui alleged that "Some people are taking advantage of Taiwan's democracy to wage civil war. They are using freedom and human rights as cover. They are part of [Mainland] China's united front conspiracy. The people of Taiwan must distinguish between friend and foe. They must see where the enemy is." Lee spun blue camp oversight of Democratic Progressive Party rule as a "struggle between [Mainland] China and Taiwan". This grotesque attempt at red-baiting swept aside reason. More importantly political opponents were cast as Communist sympathizers and as enemies of the people. Fighting against them was not considered anti-democratic. it was not considered persecution of political opponents. Instead, it was transformed into a "Love of Taiwan" Holy War.

Taiwan independence extremist Chin Heng-wei has been demagoguing Lee's rhetoric. He has spun the Red Shirt anti-corruption movement as an attempt by "reactionary forces" to prevent "nativist rule". He demands democratic civil war because "It is essential to the development of Taiwan's democracy." To Taiwan independence extremists, only by voting out the KMT can they transform the "China Party" into the "Taiwan Party". Only by voting out the KMT, can they "resolve the civil war, and complete the consolidation of democracy". Only by voting out the KMT, can they transform Taiwan into a "normal nation". Their words show that "democratic civil war" is nothing more than hatred of Mainland China and antipathy toward Mainland China. It is the substitution of reunification vs. independence "ethnic" antagonism for democracy and conventional party politics. It is crypto-fascist dictatorship and dangerously bigoted ultranationalism.

The DPP may not have formally endorsed the concept of democratic civil war. But in 2007, when Frank Hsieh ran for president. he too characterized the struggle between Taiwan's ruling and opposition parties as democratic civil war. He said future national leaders must "End the Civil War". He said they must "reconcile and co-exist". He apparently hoped to distance himself from Chen Shui-bian. But during the 2008 election Frank Hsieh continued to incite hatred against of the Mainland in an attempt to reverse his political fortunes.

Eight years later, the green camp continues to believe that "democratic civil war is indispensable". The 2016 election looks promising for the DPP. Yet it persists in playing its "hate China" and "anti-China" card.

Tsai Ing-wen has paid lip service to "maintaining the status quo" and "honoring the ROC constitutional framework". She has used feel-good language to reduce outside wariness towards Taiwan independence. But she has never done a thing to show that the DPP is willing to forsake Taiwan independence.

The Democratic Progressive Party advocates Taiwan independence. But most people focus on the Taiwan independence party platform. In fact the "Resolution for a Normal Nation" approved by the DPP in September 2007 is a clearer and more concrete declaration of democratic civil war. It is the DPP's basic program to change the name of the nation, author a new constitution, and eradicate vestiges of Chinese tradition. The DPP has not forsaken its agenda. It is merely waiting for an opportune moment to implement it.

Tsai Ing-wen as DPP leader may present a more rational, moderate, and temperate front. But she still betrays a democratic civil war mentality in certain venues. Several days ago, she addressed a Southern Society fundraising luncheon. She pontificated, saying that "If the DPP does not shape up, the KMT will never fall". She appeared to be urging DPP reform, but her premise that the KMT must fall is antithetical to healthy partisan competition and necessary democratic oversight.

Following the Sunflower Student Movement, the green camp demanded an amendment to the referendum law that would eliminate blue camp legislators and wipe out KMT party assets. These and other issues failed to rebuild anti-STA momentum. Society's "quiet force" continued to moderate the forces of extremism. When the KMT nominated Hung Shiu-chu, the green camp democratic civil war of 2015 and 2016 officially began. The object of this wave of democratic civil war is of course to bring down the Kuomintang, and promote hatred of Mainland China.

The DPP and the Taiwan Solidarity Union support the "anti-curriculum movement". Tsai Ing-wen and green camp county chiefs and city mayors have even intimidated the Ministry of Education, warning it not to file suit. The "anti-curriculum movement" constitutes a new battleground in the "anti-democratic civil war". Lee Teng-hui was the initiator of "democratic civil war". He urges "gratitude for Japanese rule" and alleges that "the Diaoyutai Islands belong to Japan". Those too are part of the battleground for democratic civil war.

The green camp is waging democratic civil war.The 2016 election will inevitably be a showdown between anti-China and anti-anti-China forces. On this battlefront, the KMT and those who advocate the "China concept" have no reason to shrink or retreat.

民主內戰或民主進步？

2015年07月28日 中國時報

由於藍綠對立及民主體制的缺憾，台灣民主化以來，政黨惡鬥激化，似乎注定每隔8年就得面臨一次政黨輪替。回首7、8年前，陳水扁政權深陷貪腐疑雲，又無能解決經濟轉型、貧富差距等問題，就藉著在兩岸關係上挑釁中國大陸，以凝聚民粹支持力量。「民主內戰」逐漸升級，不但藍綠對立空前激烈，民進黨也走向極端，被基本教義派與深綠媒體綁架，在內部追剿所謂「叛徒」，如林濁水、李文忠、郭正亮等「十一寇」。

7、8年過去了，馬英九在人心厭亂思治的政治氛圍下，憑藉兩岸和平發展的主訴求，獲得民眾兩度以過半數支持當選總統，原本多數民眾期待台灣能夠跨越族群政治及藍綠對立的鴻溝，在兩岸和平穩定的大環境下，集中力量解決民生經濟難題，打開台灣永續發展的前途。出乎意料的是，馬英九政府在內政上出現諸多敗筆，而民進黨也不願就事論事監督，卻祭出「親中賣台」、「傾中」的大帽子打擊對手。偏偏國民黨論述貧乏、回擊無力，不但出現更嚴重的治理失能，民生受累，更掀起了一波波激烈的「政治鬥爭」。去年九合一地方選舉，分明是地方治理良窳之爭，卻在綠營側翼發動的「國民黨不倒、台灣不會好」聲浪中，成了一面倒的「民主內戰」。國民黨的崩壞並未因為選舉失利、主席下台而停止，如今已有越演越烈的趨勢。

「民主內戰」這個名詞在台灣首先被使用，應該是出自李登輝，他在2005年時指出：「有人在台灣內部利用民主從事內戰；並以自由人權作為掩護，呼應中國統戰陰謀。台灣人民要有敵我意識，看清楚敵人在哪裡。」李登輝的說法，是把藍營對民進黨執政的監督與反對，用「中國vs.台灣」這樣簡化、粗暴的二分法加以扭曲、抹紅，企圖抵消反對黨存在的合理性，更重要的是，既然反對黨是中共同路人，是人民的敵人，與他們對抗不但不是反民主，不是打擊政敵，還是一場愛台灣的聖戰。

極端獨派的金恆煒就繼續「闡揚」了李登輝的說法，他把當年紅衫軍反貪腐運動視為「反動勢力」的反撲，是企圖打垮本土政權，所以就有了「民主內戰的必要性」，因為這「對台灣民主政治發展而言，卻是正面而必要的效應」。對於極端台獨來說，只有用選票推倒國民黨，「轉化中國黨為台灣黨」，才能「解決內戰，完成民主鞏固」，台灣也才能成為「正常國家」。由他們的言論也可以清楚地發現，所謂的「民主內戰」本質上始終是仇中、反中的，是以統獨族群對立取消、代換民主政治、政黨競爭，這是隱性的法西斯獨裁思想，是褊狹危險的極端民族主義。

更重要的是，民進黨雖然沒有肯定過「民主內戰」的論述思維，謝長廷在2007年被提名參選總統時還說，台灣朝野互鬥就像「民主內戰」，未來的國家領導人要「終結內戰」、「和解共生」，彷彿要和陳水扁切割。但實際上，謝長廷在2008年大選中仍然不斷大力散播仇中恐中，希望能夠實現「逆轉勝」。

8年過去了，在綠營人士的腦海中，「民主內戰的必要」極端思維從未消失。2016年大選民進黨聲勢一片看好，但始終未放棄他們慣用的「仇中牌」、「反中牌」。

蔡英文提出「維持現狀」和「中華民國憲政體制」，用模糊的語言軟化外界對台獨的戒心，但她從來沒有採取實際行動，證明民進黨願意放下台獨思維。

談到民進黨的台獨主張，人民往往只聚焦在台獨黨綱，實際上，民進黨在2007年9月通過的「正常國家決議文」是更為具體、更為清晰的「民主內戰綱領」，是民進黨推動正名、制憲、去中國化的基本綱領，他們至今不但仍未加以放棄，反而不斷伺機推動。

位居領先地位的蔡英文雖然擺出理性、中道、溫和的姿態，卻仍然會在特定場合流露「民主內戰」的心態，日前，她在南社募款餐會上就高談「民進黨不好，國民黨不倒」，雖然看似在勉勵民進黨改革進步，但卻是以「國民黨倒」為其前提，這已經完全背離了政黨良性競爭、相互監督的民主精神。

太陽花運動之後，泛綠陣營推動的「公投法補正」、「割藍委」以至於「黨產歸零」等議題都沒有重現反服貿運動的氣勢，社會的「沉默力量」依然節制著極端力量。但隨著國民黨正式提名洪秀柱參選，泛綠陣營2015、2016年「民主內戰」已經正式開打。這一波的民主內戰，當然還是以「打倒國民黨」為總目標，以「反中」、「仇中」為武器。

從民進黨、台聯對於反課綱運動的介入、支持，以至於蔡英文率綠營縣市長恫嚇教育部不得提告的動作看來，「反課綱微調」可說是「反中民主內戰」另闢的新戰場。民主內戰始作俑者李登輝在日本的「日本統治感謝論」和「釣魚台日本主權論」，當然也是民主內戰的新戰場。

面對綠營民主內戰的攻勢，2016選戰必定是一場反中與反反中的對決，在這個戰線上，國民黨及支持「中國概念」者，沒有任何猶豫退縮的理由。