Evaluating the Historical Legacies of Our Political Leaders

Evaluating the Historical Legacies of Our Political Leaders
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 20, 2012

Summary: With a single word, The Economist touched off more controversy about President Ma Ying-jeou's legacy. The Economist referred to Ma as a "bumbler." Is President Ma a bumbler? Is he incompetent? Is he "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan?" Is he another King Zhou of Shang? We need not seek premature conclusions. History will render its verdict, one that is reasonable, that does not exaggerate, that does not defame. When the time comes, his critics too will see how they rank.

Full Text below:

With a single word, The Economist touched off more controversy about President Ma Ying-jeou's legacy. The Economist referred to Ma as a "bumbler." This article asks how we should evaluate the legacies of our political leaders. We have no desire to draw any firm conclusions about President Ma's legacy at the moment. We merely cite him as an example.

We can evaluate the legacy of a political leader from two perspectives. The first is according to his standing in history. The second is according to his standing during his own lifetime. From an historical perspective, he can be compared to his predecessors and his successors. Therefore we can evaluate Ma Ying-jeou by comparing him to Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian. We can also compare him to future generations. From an historical perspective, Ma Ying-jeou compares rather favorably. Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian tore Taiwan apart. They stood on the wrong side of history. They led Taiwan down the garden path. Ma Ying-jeou undid the mistakes of his predecessors. He set future generations irreversibly back on the right path. The DPP is currently debating whether to undertake reforms. That is evidence of Ma's impact.

Let us consider a political leader's status during his own lifetime. We can compare him to his contemporaries, both at home and abroad. We can compare Ma Ying-jeou to Frank Hsieh in 2008, and to Tsai Ing-wen in 2012. Frank Hsieh is currently promoting DPP reform. He even says "There is nothing wrong with the DPP learning from the KMT's cross-Strait policy." This is the difference between Ma and Hsieh. Had Tsai Ing-wen prevailed over Ma Ying-jeou in 2012 and become president, her record would surely be inferior to Ma Ying-jeou's. She would surely have been incapable of making cross-Strait relations work, let alone other matters. This is the difference between Ma and Tsai.

Compare Ma to his contemporaries abroad. Leaders of the major powers are presiding over their nations' economic decline. Few leaders of nations with freedom of the press, competition between political parties, democracy, and a free economy, are in good odor or enjoy popular support. One look at Europe proves that. Cabinets in Japan are overturned regularly. South Korea's Lee Myung-bak enjoys better press abroad than he does at home. President Barack Obama, leader of the United States, the most powerful nation on earth, has the same label attached to him: bumbler. Look at the cover story in the same issue of The Economist. See how it criticized France. Clearly Ma Ying-jeou is not the one in lowest repute. No wonder President Francois Hollande was hopping mad.

Any evaluation of a political leader's worth should take into account the difficulty of the task he faces. He must be able to manage the resources of the nation. Chiang Ching-kuo's administration was tainted by martial law and the Chiang Nan Incident. But the nation was in dire straits. He wrestled with social constraints. He eventually implemented democracy and cross-Strait exchanges. This secured his legacy, both historically and contemporarily. Taiwan was in crisis. Chiang Ching-kuo achieved much with little, making his accomplishments all the more impressive.

Taiwan faces problems, domestic and international, that are extraordinary and daunting. It must cope with demands from without, and demands from within. It must cope with the "one China framework" from the CCP, and the "rectification of names" from the DPP. It must promote liberal democracy. It must tackle the challenges of globalization despite its lack of resources. It must meet public expectations of economic growth and distributive justice. As Jerome Cohen noted, the presidency of the Republic of China is the toughest job in the world. Ma's predecessors Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian tore Taiwan apart. Taiwan became a "troublemaker," detested by both Washington and Beijing. This is why it is not easy to be President of the Republic of China. This is why Lee and Chen wanted to repudiate the Republic of China altogether, and divest themselves of the burden its governance. By contrast, Frank Hsieh wants to reclaim the ROC.

Ma Ying-jeou is President of the Republic of China. The public does not want cross-Strait relations to collapse into chaos. It does not want a repeat of Chen Shui-bian's corruption. Chen's daughter summed up Chen's corruption well when she said, "Who hasn't taken money from my father?" Taiwan lacks the wherewithal to duplicate Lee-Myung-Bak's landing on Dokdo, or George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq. Some members of the public wanted Ma to sign ECFA. Others did not. Some members of the public wanted the capital gains tax. Others did not. Some members of the public wanted gasoline and electricity rate hikes. Others did not. Some members of the public wanted servicemen to pay taxes. Others did not. Some members of the public wanted second generation health care. Others did not. Have members of the public forgotten "market price real estate listing?" Former Vice President Vincent Siew and Legislative Yuan Speaker Wang Jing-pying both expressed opposition. Should "market price real estate listing" be implemented? How can Ma Ying-jeou convince opponents? He can't even convince Vincent Siew and Wang Jing-pyng.

The Economist's evaluation of Ma Ying-jeou is self-contradictory. It said, "Nothing suggests Mr Ma's main policies will change (or that they should)." This harsh editorial said President Ma "will not change" and "should not change." Ma's critics are apparently just as "bumbling" as President Ma. Take the U.S. beef imports controversy. It raged for six months. Some legislators camped out on the floor of the Legislative Yuan for five days. Recall what happened. The Economist leveled some harsh criticisms. But did it bother to evaluate the Ma administration's U.S. beef imports policy? Did it bother to ask itself why it "will not change" and "should not change?" Is the Ma administration really that incompetent? Or are its critics merely being unreasonable?

Consider a political leader's ability and achievements according to his standing in history and his standing during his own lifetime. They can be divided into four categories. One. A political leader may use evil means in the pursuit of evil ends. A major offender would be someone like Mao Zedong. A minor offender would be someone like Chen Shui-bian. Two. A political leader may use evil means in the understandable pursuit of lofty ends. Examples include Deng Xiaoping's draconian measures and Chiang Ching-kuo's martial law. Three. A political leader may use legitimate but clumsy means in pursuit of justifiable ends. Examples include ECFA, Market Price Real Estate Listings, and U.S. beef imports. This was the case with Ma Ying-jeou. Four. A political leader may use legitimate and sophisticated means in pursuit of justifiable ends. Perhaps once in the lifetime of every political leader an opportunity like this will arise. But no political leader is ever going encounter fair winds and following seas during his entire career.

On March 22, 2008, Ma Ying-jeou was elected to his first term as president. On March 25th, this newspaper published the third in a series of editorials, entitled, "Ma Ying-jeou's Challenge: A Good Person Must Become a Capable Person." As we can see, doubts about his ability have long haunted Ma Ying-jeou. This newspaper's editorials have criticized him relentlessly. This newspaper feels that a democracy must be critical of its political leaders. But simplistic judgments, including characterizations of Ma Ying-jeou as the tyrannical King Zhou of Shang are hardly fair. Under democracy those in power will do what they must do. Critics will say what they must say. But Ma Ying-jeou's legacy will not be determined by Wang Chien-hsuan's characterization of him as "incompetent," or by The Economist's characterization of him as a "bumbler." .

Is President Ma a bumbler? Is he incompetent? Is he "pandering to [Mainland] China and selling out Taiwan?" Is he another King Zhou of Shang? We need not seek premature conclusions. History will render its verdict, one that is reasonable, that does not exaggerate, that does not defame. When the time comes, his critics too will see how they rank.

煮酒論英雄：歷史縱軸與時代橫軸
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.11.20

《經濟學人》的一句bumbler，又掀起對馬英九總統評價的議論。本文主要想談如何評價一位政治人物，而不欲定論對馬總統的評價，只是以他為例。

對一位政治領袖的評價，可從歷史縱軸與時代橫軸等兩個面向觀察。從歷史縱軸看，可將這位領袖與前人比，也要與其後人比。因此，評價馬英九，可與李登輝與陳水扁比，也將與馬的未來幾代後任者比。在歷史縱軸上，馬英九有其優勢，因為李登輝與陳水扁撕裂了台灣社會，且誤導台灣走向了歷史的謬誤面；而馬英九扭轉了前人的錯誤，並為後人定下了無可逆轉的方向，民進黨正在爭議轉型，即可佐證。

再從時代的橫軸看，可將這位政治領袖與本國當代人物比，亦與世界當代領袖比。馬英九在二○○八年與謝長廷比，二○一二年與蔡英文比。謝長廷此時正在主導民進黨轉型，甚至稱「民進黨兩岸政策學國民黨也不錯」，這是馬謝對比；而倘若蔡英文在二○一二贏過馬英九，當了總統，其政績可以斷言絕對還不如馬英九今日的表現，因為她當時根本喬不定兩岸關係，遑論其他，這是馬蔡對比。

再與當代世界領袖比：當現今舉世國家領袖都站在世界經濟衰颯的共同立足點上，且倘若同是採行輿論自由、政黨競爭的民主政治與自由經濟，率皆難有高聲望及高民氣，舉目歐洲即可知，日本的內閣更翻覆如翻書，連韓國的李明博也是「外國評價比國內高」，而全球首強美國總統歐巴馬，輿論也曾送給他與馬英九一模一樣的封號：bumbler。這只要看同一期《經濟學人》的封面故事如何批評法國，即知馬英九恐怕尚不是最難堪的一位，難怪惹得歐蘭德總統跳腳。

再者，評價一名政治領袖的能力，應與其所面對之任務的難易程度相對比，亦須以其能夠操持的國家資源條件為參酌。蔣經國一生，雖有戒嚴統治及江南案等汙點，但他在國家那般艱困的情勢下，苦心陶鑄社會條件，終於完成「政治民主／兩岸開放」的巨大工程；這使他無論在歷史縱軸或時代橫軸上，皆有可以肯定的地位。因為，台灣的處境既危又衰，從而蔣經國以小搏大的成就即相對顯得難能可貴。

正因台灣的內外處境是異常又非常的艱難，既要面對彼岸的「一中框架」與內部的「正名制憲」，又要推行自由開放的民主政治，還要在資源窮絀下，迎對全球化的挑戰，且須維持可堪滿足人心的經濟發展與分配正義，使得孔傑榮稱，「台灣總統是全世界最難的工作之一」；亦正因如此，前任的李登輝、陳水扁二人將台灣撕裂得支離破碎，使台灣成為華府與北京皆表厭惡的「麻煩製造者」，這正可見擔任中華民國總統之不易，甚至使李扁二人想乾脆根本否定中華民國，丟掉中華民國這個包袱；但是，謝長廷一輩現在又想將之拾回。

馬英九正是台灣的總統，正是中華民國總統；國人不願他把兩岸關係搞得烏煙瘴氣，也不容他像陳水扁那樣用貪汙的錢去搞「誰沒有收過我爸爸的錢？」，且台灣又沒有如「李明博登獨島」、「小布希揮軍伊拉克」的國際操作空間，但人們又要他簽ＥＣＦＡ又反對，又要他徵證所稅又反對，又要他油電漲價又反對，又要他軍人納稅又反對，又要他二代健保又反對……。國人若不健忘，即以「實價登錄」而言，前副總統蕭萬長及立法院長王金平皆曾表示反對，但「實價登錄」應不應當做？馬英九豈有「能力」去說服所有的反對者，他連蕭萬長與王金平都說服不了。

《經濟學人》對馬英九的最後評語是一弔詭。它說：「沒有跡象顯示馬的主要政策會改變（或者應該改變）。」春秋之筆的寓意是：馬總統「不會改變」，也「不應該改變」。於是，在此又可得知，主政者的「能力」與批評者的「能力」，其實是相互對應的。例如美牛案，天翻地覆地吵了半年多，甚至有人在立院打了五天地鋪，但現在回想起來，除了那些火爆辛辣的「批評」以外，有沒有人認真想過當時美牛政策「不會改變／不應改變」的道理何在？這到底是主政者「無能」？還是批評者「無理」？

從歷史縱軸與時代橫軸看，政治領袖的「能力」與「政績」之對比，或許可概分為四種類型。一、以惡劣的手法追求惡劣之目的。大巫是毛澤東之類，小巫是陳水扁之屬。二、以惡劣之手法，追求可以理解並終付實現之高遠目的，如鄧小平的強硬操作，與蔣經國的戒嚴統治；三、以正當但笨拙的手法，追求正當合理之目的，如ＥＣＦＡ或實價登錄、美牛案等，這是馬英九；四、以正當又精巧之手法，完成正當合理之目的，則或許每一政治領袖的一生中偶爾能有此類個案之表現，但不可能找到一人終生事事如此的奇蹟。

在二○○八年三月二十二日，馬英九首次當選總統，本報在二十五日刊出系列社論第三篇，題目即是：〈馬英九課題：從「好人」到「能人」！〉可見，「有無能力」這個質疑，一直如影隨形地跟著馬英九，本報社論對其亦是批評不斷；本文認為，民主政治應當對政治領袖嚴格批評是天經地義，但過於簡化的評論，甚至公開在報紙上將馬英九喻為商紂王，卻也難謂公允。民主政治，本來就是主政者為所應為，批評者批所當批。然而，馬英九的評價，恐怕不是王建?一句「無能」，或《經濟學人》一句bumbler，可以一槌落定。

馬總統是否bumbler？是否無能？是否「傾中賣台」？是否商紂王？其實皆不必過早定論，日後在歷史縱軸與時代橫軸的座標上，終將會給馬英九一個不虛誇、不踐踏的合理定位，到時候今日的批評者也會看到自己的位置。