New Three Kingdoms Pales Next to Old

New Three Kingdoms Pales Next to Old 
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 19, 2015

Executive Summary: Less than five months remain before the presidential election. The KMT's Hung Hsiu-chu, the DPP's Tsai Ing-wen, and the PFP's James Soong, constitute a "triumvirate" reminiscent of the 2000 presidential election. Back then, Lien Chan, James Soong, and Chen Shui-bian squared off against each other. This "New Three Kingdoms" bears a certain resemblance to the "Old Three Kingdoms". But this time the candidates differ. The political environment differs. The voters' options differ. It would be difficult to say that politics on Taiwan has progressed. On the contrary, it would be easy to conclude that it has regressed.

Full Text Below:

Less than five months remain before the presidential election. The KMT's Hung Hsiu-chu, the DPP's Tsai Ing-wen, and the PFP's James Soong, constitute a "triumvirate" reminiscent of the 2000 presidential election. Back then, Lien Chan, James Soong, and Chen Shui-bian squared off against each other. This "New Three Kingdoms" bears a certain resemblance to the "Old Three Kingdoms". But this time the candidates differ. The political environment differs. The voters' options differ. It would be difficult to say that politics on Taiwan has progressed. On the contrary, it would be easy to conclude that it has regressed.

The three major candidates during the 2000 presidential election were the KMT's Lien Chan, the DPP's Chen Shui-bian, and KMT apostate James Soong. Sixteen years later, public feelings toward these three has dramatically changed. But given the political and social climate at the time, these three were the "men of the hour". Lien Chan was outgoing President Lee Teng-hui's designated successor. HIs qualifications and character were exceptional. Chen Shui-bian was the shining star of the DPP, a real go-getter, and the first directly elected mayor of the nation's capital. James Soong lost the political struggle within the KMT, and lacked the support of any political party. But his halo as former Taiwan Provincial governor remained bright, and made him a highly attractive candidate.

Because the three candidates had different backgrounds and character traits, the campaign could be considered classic. The three camps mustered all their forces to win voter support. The three camps were diametrically opposed in their campaign literature, organizational structure, and policy proposals. Every attack drew blood. Taiwan had only recently emerged from authoritarianism. The competition was not entirely fair. Emotions ran high. People found themselves at loggerheads with each other. The result was a painful blue camp schism. But democratic participation during the 2000 presidential election was key to Taiwan's democratic politics, and laid the foundation for Taiwan's party politics.

Yet 16 years later, the three candidates currently in the running, fail to inspire the same enthusiasm among the electorate back then. Put bluntly, it would be hard to describe any of the "New Three Kingdoms" candidates as a "man (or woman) of the hour", at least when compared with those of the "Old Three Kingdoms". That includes four time presidential candidate James Soong, now a mere shadow of his former self. For the voters, the campaign has been a disappointment. For the political system, the campaign reveals how much democracy has regressed.

First take front-runner Tsai Ing-wen. Chen Shui-bian's ability to excite the masses was extraordinary. Tsai Ing-wen falls far short in that department. Her virtues are her composure and ability to strategize. Tsai Ing-wen's problem is her peculiar ambiguity. She never makes anything clear. She is never able to make anything clear. She creates for herself a gray area that leaves the public in the dark. After losing four years ago, she resolved to take her ambiguity to the extreme. The DPP is a rough and tumble political party. As it carries Tsai Ing-wen aloft in a sedan chair, the incongruity borders on hypocrisy.

Now take the KMT's Hung Hsiu-chu. She won the KMT nomination only because the "A List" candidates were afraid to do battle. Her political qualifications are solid. But she lacks experience in command. She can only consolidate her core support. She lacks the ability to broaden her appeal. She pales next to Lien Chan, who enjoyed the backing of the party machine. James Soong meanwhile, has experienced over a decade of ups and downs. He has flip-flopped endlessly. His halo as governor long ago lost its lustre. All that remains is his political ambition, his obstinate refusal to admit defeat. Can he really transcend blue and green? Can he really spearhead a "grand coalition"? It all sounds great. But from the perspective of outsiders, Soong is merely letting his selfish drive for power undermine his political responsibilities.

The "New Three Kingdoms" pales next to the "Old Three Kingdoms". Tsai Ing-wen in 2016 pales next to Chen Shui-bian in 2000. Hung Hsiu-chu in 2016 pales next to Lien Chan in 2000. James Soong in 2016 pales next to James Soong in 2000. That is the tragedy of this election. The times may be progressing, but Taiwan's democracy is regressing.

Sixteen years have elapsed. So why have the voters' options become increasingly limited? One reason is the rapid depletion of intellectual elites. During Chen Shui-bian's eight years in power, the DPP's middle-aged leadership was virtually decimated. No one close to Chen was spared. As a result, two consecutive DPP presidential candidates had little connection to the DPP. Tsai Ing-wen's political qualifications were meager. A similar situation prevailed within the KMT. During Ma Ying-jeou's eight years in office, the party failed to cultivate a new generation of leaders. Cabinet ministers were recruited with excessive reliance on academic credentials. The party lost cohesion and imploded.

The rise of populism has made politics risky business. Political candidates must endure examination under a microscope. Their poiicy proposals, policy implementation, even their family members must endure irrational attacks. Many of those who contemplate a career in politics are deterred by irrational criticism. The harsh political environment naturally makes it difficult to attract qualified candidates.

Who will win the 2016 general election? A better question might be "Why has Taiwan's democracy regressed?" 

「新三國」不如「舊三國」，何以致之？
2015-08-19聯合報

剩下不到五個月的總統大選，國民黨洪 秀柱、民進黨蔡英文和親民黨宋楚瑜的「三足鼎立」，讓人想起兩千年總統大選的連宋陳「三強爭霸」。但除了「新三國」與「舊三國」的態勢類似，從候選人的個 人條件、民主環境的實況、和選民擁有的選擇看，卻很難讓人感到台灣的政治進步了，反而覺得是不進反退。

兩千年總統大選的 三個主要候選人，分別是國民黨的連戰、民進黨的陳水扁和從國民黨脫黨的宋楚瑜。事隔十六年之後回看，儘管民眾對這三個人的評價皆已大不相同，然而，從當時 的政治和社會氛圍來看，這三人皆堪稱一時之選。連戰是即將卸任的總統李登輝之欽定接班人，政治資歷、學養俱佳；陳水扁是民進黨閃亮的政治明星，敢衝敢做， 曾任首任直選的首都市長。至於宋楚瑜，雖在國民黨內的政治鬥爭落敗而無政黨支持，卻因省長光環，儼為當時極具民意號召力的一方之雄。

由 於三位候選人不同的背景與特質，選戰過程也堪稱經典。三個陣營卯足全力，爭取選民認同，不管是文宣戰、組織戰或政策戰，都是針鋒相對、刀刀見血。儘管當時 政治環境距離台灣脫離威權時代不久，有些競爭未盡公平，激情的演出也引發社會的對立，並導致藍營的慘痛分裂；但從民主參與的角度看，二○○○年的總統大 選，確實是台灣邁入民主政治的關鍵一役，也奠立了台灣政黨政治的基礎。

但是，十六年過去了，目前檯面上的三個候選人，卻 已經無法再激起選民當年的熱情。更直白地說，當下「新三國」的候選人，似皆難稱是一時之選；至少，與當年「舊三國」的候選人對比──包括四度參選的宋楚瑜 比起當年的他自己，都遜色不少。這點，從選民的角度看，確實令人失望；從政治的角度看，則顯示了民主的退化。

先談目前民 調居於領先的蔡英文。比起陳水扁過人的煽動能力，蔡英文的政治魅力自然遠不如他；她的特質是相對冷靜，擅長運籌帷幄。問題在，蔡英文有一種奇特的曖昧性， 凡事「不說清楚，也說不清楚」，使自己保持在安全的模糊地帶，讓民眾難以捉摸。歷經四年前的敗選，她這次更將模糊的特質發揮到極致。深具草莽性格的民進 黨，抬著蔡英文的轎子，其實極不協調，也顯表裡不一。

再看國民黨的洪秀柱。她在國民黨的「Ａ咖」怯戰的情況下獲得提名， 儘管政治資歷頗深，卻缺乏指揮大局的閱歷，只能固守基本盤，缺乏拓展局面的能力；與當年擁有黨機器力挺的連戰，難以相比。至於宋楚瑜，十多年來在政壇的起 起伏伏、左傾右倒，當年的「省長光環」早已剝落殆盡，只剩他自己不甘罷休的政治野心。就算他把「超越藍綠」、「大聯合政府」說得煞有介事，在外界看來，全 都抵不過他因個人權力野心而破壞政局應負的責任。

這就是所謂的「新三國」不如「舊三國」：二○一六的蔡英文不如二○○○的陳水扁，二○一六的洪秀柱不如二○○○的連戰，二○一六的宋楚瑜不如二○○○的宋楚瑜。這也是這次選舉的悲哀：時代在進步，台灣的民主卻在倒退。

十 六年時光流轉，為何台灣選民的選擇卻越來越無奈？原因之一，是政治菁英的快速耗損。陳水扁的八年執政，讓民進黨中生代菁英幾乎毀於一旦，所有與扁關係密切 者幾乎皆難倖免。也因此，兩次代表民進黨參選總統者，是由與民進黨關係不深、政治資歷色彩較淺的蔡英文出馬。類似情況也發生在國民黨，馬英九總統的八年執 政，沒培養出幾位新一代的黨內菁英，而閣員晉用過度倚重學界的結果，更造成黨內向心力的潰散，四分五裂。

其次，是民粹政治的風行，使得政治被視為畏途。政治人物不僅必須受到鋪天蓋地的檢驗，政治主張、政策推行、乃至家人都必須面對非理性的攻擊；不少有志以政治為志業者，都因恐懼遭到無謂攻訐而卻步。政治環境惡劣至此，當然也就很難吸引真正的社會菁英投入。

二○一六大選走至現在，除關心誰輸誰贏，也該深刻檢討台灣的民主發展為何走向了倒退的路。