President Ma Must Lead Public Opinion and Offer the Nation a Clear Direction

President Ma Must Lead Public Opinion and Offer the Nation a Clear Direction
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 6, 2013

Summary: On Taiwan, for government leaders and the man in the street, "Democracy is all about public opinion." At least, that is the mantra. But for many, the reality is "Public opinion is as changeable as running water." If public policy is erected on a foundation of running water, how firm can the edifice of state possibly be?

Full Text below:

On Taiwan, for government leaders and the man in the street, "Democracy is all about public opinion." At least, that is the mantra. But for many, the reality is "Public opinion is like running water." If public policy is erected on a foundation of running water, how firm can the edifice of state possibly be?

Great Britain's constitutional framework is rooted in John Locke's concept of the right of resistance. If the government does not conform to the public will, the people can replace it at their discretion. That is why a no confidence vote grants parliament the right to dissolve the parliament and the cabinet. Its purpose is to keep public policy in step with public opinion. This accords with the ideals of democracy. But it also facilitates majoritarian tyranny within the national legislature, Nations within the Anglosphere are aware of this danger. That is why they separated the executive and legislative powers. Their national founders had a vision. Presidential power would be concentrated in a single person. This would enable him or her to respond more swiftly while leading the nation. Legislative power would be dispersed among many individuals, and between two houses. This would make them more responsive to public opinion. Judicial power would be conferred upon judges for life. This would enable them to transcend political pressures. Therefore, even though the president and members of the legislature are both elected. Their elections have very different meanings. The former is an election for "the best and the brightest." The hope is that those elected will have both the wisdom and the determination to lead the nation. That is why they are given a fixed term of four years. This enables them to avoid the pressure of public opinion. The latter is an election for "vox populi," for a "voice of the people." That is why they are given mere two-year terms. This prevents them from becoming out of touch with public opinion. The British system is different. The parliament lacks the right to hold a no confidence vote to facilitate and defend the president's leadership.

Our constitutional framework stipulates a five part separation of powers. But at its core, the separation of powers is between the executive and the legislative. In spirit, it clearly resembles the American model. In other words, we elect a president to provide us with a clear sense of direction. We want someone with the courage to lead public opinion. We want a wise leader able to defy legislative pressure. We do not want someone who is constantly holding up his finger to see which way the wind is blowing. We do not want a "jellyfish head of state" unable to stick to his principles. Unfortunately, President Ma's record over the past five years, shows a surfeit of supplication and a dearth of determination. Last year's U.S. beef imports controversy, and this year's Number Four Nuclear Power Plant controversy persist. During both of these controversies, he exhibited the same character deficiencies.

After last year's Lunar New Year, rumors emerged that the United States was pressuring him to allow the importation of U.S. beef products. Then newly re-elected President Ma repeatedly stipulated, "no promises, no timetable, no predetermined position." As we all know, the resumption of TIFA talks was necessary to join the TPP. This was hard reality. Taipei has very little bargaining power. But the president's announcement that he had "no predetermined position" opened Pandora's Box. Pandemonium erupted among various special interests and between the ruling and opposition parties. Only in April did the president belatedly put his foot down and say, "US beef imports must be allowed in. This is a matter of national credibility." He confessed that Taipei and Washington already had an agreement. The U.S. beef imports controversy dragged on until the last day of the June legislative session. Only then was the bill finally passed. The entire country wasted five months arguing over a decision that had already been made. President Ma's approval rating tested new lows.

Sadly, last year's U.S. beef imports fiasco failed to teach President Ma a lesson. Ma is now betting his credibility as a leader on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. In February, President Ma met with KMT legislators to discuss nuclear power plant issues. According to Ma, he had "no predetermined position." He appeared to be open to the legislators' recommendations. To prove that Ma had no predetermined position, Premier Chiang suggested a public referendum. This would allow the public to decide whether to continue construction. President Ma expressed stauch support for such a referendum. But the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant is a multi-trillion dollar infrastructure project. How can the nation's highest ranking political leader not have any opinion about whether to finish construction? Can a public referendum resolve the multitude of complex public financing and technological problems involved? If it can, then why go to the trouble of electing a president and granting him these decision-making powers? Is President Ma using a public referendum as political cover for his decision to continue construction on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant? When such suspicions arise, the referendum no longer serves to legitimize the president's decisions. In other words, just as in the U.S. beef imports fiasco, such a referendum will only waste the nation's time and energy.

This week, Ma invited media executives and reporters on a grand tour of power generation facilities. He took them on an overnight visit of the Number Three Nuclear Power Plant. During a walking tour, Ma declared, "In the short-term alternative energy sources cannot replace nuclear energy. The Immediate impact of abolishing nuclear energy would be great. Nuclear energy is essential during any transition period." The implication was clear. The Number Four Nuclear Power Plant must be finished. Ma clearly believes this is the case. He is the nation's highest leader. People across the nation are looking for a clear direction and for leadership. So why did Ma not speak up and state his position at the beginning of the year? Why mire people across the nation in a "public referendum?" Why flip-flop between this and solemn reassurances that "Without nuclear safety, there can be no nuclear power?" As some in the media have noted, If Ma already had a position, he should have attempted to set forth a convincing "National Energy Discourse." He should not waste time and energy on a public referendum.

The design of our political framework posits the president as the nation's helmsman. It matters not whether he or she belongs to the same party or the same faction. The public wants a president who exudes conviction and evinces consistency, who provides individuals and the nation with opportunities for growth. People need to plan their careers and their lives. But on one issue after another, from U.S. beef imports to the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant, President Ma has nothing to say except "I have no predetermined position." He puts on a show of openness and tolerance. He seldom bears any resemblance to other national leaders, who solemnly take to the podium to officially proclaim national policy, and to reassure the public. If the media and the public can only learn what the president is thinking from from his intraparty statements, his public interviews, personal visits, and facebook posts, can we blame the public when it calls him a spineless jellyfish?
   
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2013.06.06
社論－給百業明確方向感 總統要敢領導民意
本報訊

    　在台灣，無論是政府領袖或一般販夫走卒，常把「民主政治就是民意政治」琅琅上口的掛在嘴邊。但「民意如流水」也是許多人的體會，如果施政總是建立在流水的基礎上，國家的城堡又如何維持堅固？

    　英國的憲政體制承襲了洛克的抵抗權觀念，主張政府施政如果不符民意，人民可以隨時撤換政府，故而賦予國會倒閣權及內閣的解散國會權，希望讓施政與民意能夠亦步亦趨，以符民主的理想。但此一設計卻使得多數暴力壟罩國會，使得傳承英國文化的美國殖民地有所警惕，因而創造了行政與立法分立的三權體制。開國先賢的理想是，總統權集中於一人身上，使其得以明確迅速的領導國家；立法權分散於眾多議員與兩院手中，使得民意反映更為周延；司法權由終生職法官掌控，得以超然就理論法。故而，儘管總統與國會議員都是透過選舉產生，但兩者的意義卻大不相同。前者乃為「選賢與能」，希望當選者賢能明智具有果斷的意志，能領導國家穩定的發展，故設計出固定的四年任期，以避免承受經常性的民意壓力；後者則為「選民喉舌」，故任期僅有兩年防止民意脫節，但與英國制度不同的是，國會不具倒閣權以利總統維護施政的領導空間。

    　我國憲政雖然號稱五權，但核心設計採行政與立法分立，精神上明顯傾向美國的體制。換言之，我們選總統為的是要一個具明確方向感，敢於領導民意，不畏國會壓力的賢明領袖，而不是處處以民意為依歸，不敢堅持個人理念與原則的水母型首長。遺憾的是，馬總統過去五年的表現，便讓人感覺謙沖客氣有餘，領袖魄力略嫌不足，去年的美牛進口事件與今年的核四續建問題，便在在浮現他的這些人格特質。

    　去年農曆年後，已有傳聞美國開始施壓台灣要求開放美牛進口，但當時甫當選連任的馬總統，卻一再對外宣稱「沒有承諾、沒有時間表、沒有預設立場。」眾人皆知，在TIFA復談與參加TPP的客觀情勢下，台灣沒有喊價的空間，但總統這句「沒有預設立場」，無異打開潘朵拉的盒蓋，各方利益與朝野政黨因此吵得不可開交。直到四月初，總統才說「美牛非過不可，因為事關國家信用」，抖出了台美原來早有承諾的事實。就這樣美牛案拖到六月立院會期的最後一天才完成立法，全國上下竟為一個不存在的議題，虛耗了五個月，馬總統的支持度也因此跌到了低點。

    　令人痛心的是，去年的美牛事件並沒有讓馬總統記取教訓，馬似乎以核四續建之名準備再將領袖信譽豪賭一次。二月，馬總統邀請黨籍立委討論核四議題，據轉述馬表示「沒有預設立場」，面對立委的建議也採取開放的態度。或為了證明果真沒有立場，行政院江院長便隨即在月底拋出核四公投的主張，要讓民意決定是否續建，馬總統對此表示力挺。但核四這個上兆經費的計畫，身為國家最高領導人怎能沒有立場？如果公投民意能夠解決諸多財政與技術上的複雜問題，我們又何必辛苦選個總統並賦予他決策大權？故而當「以公投之名，行捍衛核四續建之實」的質疑此起彼落時，公投便已無法再賦予總統決策的合法性基礎。換言之，如同美牛事件，這場公投玩到底也依然只是虛耗空轉。

    　本周以來，馬大陣仗的帶領媒體主管與記者展開能源之旅，在夜宿核三後繼續走訪核四。行走間，馬明白的表示「替代能源短期無法取代核能，立即廢核衝擊大，核能為過渡時期的必要選擇。」言下之意，核四是非蓋不可了。果真如此，身為國家最高領袖，當全國民眾都仰望明確的方向與領導時，為何年初以來不能大聲表達立場，反陷全國民眾於「公投」與「沒有核安就沒有核電」間惶然遊走？正如部分媒體所指出的，馬若早有定見，便應及早提出一套具說服力的「國家能源論述」，而非環繞著公投議題虛耗。

    　體制的設計既將總統塑造成國家的舵手，無論是否屬於同一黨派，人民無不企盼由總統堅定的態度與言談，尋得個人與國家發展的方向，以做為事業與生活的規畫依據。但從美牛事件到核四議題，馬總統除了喜歡重複「沒有預設立場」，以矯飾廓然大度外，也鮮少如同國外領導人，嚴肅的站在講壇上正式宣示國家政策，扮演安定民心的中流砥柱角色。如果媒體與民眾都只能由總統的黨內發言、專訪、巡視、臉書等，捕捉總統的思維，又如何能責怪人民譏評政府宛如沒有背脊的水母？