Will Social Unrest Return to the Streets?

Will Social Unrest Return to the Streets?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
August 26, 2013

Summary: The administration always waits until after the fact to communicate with the public. The legislature views "harmony" as more important than convening sessions. The Control Yuan feels it "may as well close up shop." The opposition DPP is content to watch as the ruling party embarrasses itself. This leads to political impotence. This leads to street protests. The machinery of state becomes the tail wagging the dog. Those truly lost, are society's silent majority.

Full text below:

Last year's protests against the demolition of Wenlin Yuan continue. This year street protests on Taiwan have proliferated. People from all walks of life are concerned about nuclear power generation. Up to 200,000 White Shirts have appeared on Ketegelan Boulevard. Protestors include opponents of the demolition of Ta Pu and opponents of the eastward relocation of the Tainan railway line. They even include opponents of media cartels and TISA. This shows that discontent on Taiwan is prompting a new wave of protests.

Some of the protests fall outside the framework of traditional ideological struggles. Today the Green Camp is no longer able to lead these protestors around by the nose. It can no longer manipulate them or support them from behind the scenes. Some protestors have kept their distance from the DPP. They have refused to allow the DPP to participate, in order to "avoid contamination." Social protests today are more autonomous. They are increasingly depoliticized. This is gratifying indeed. But some protests are immoral and irrationa. Neverthelss the ruling and opposition parties have failed to respond to them. This has exposed the emptiness and impotence of Taiwan's politics.

Closer examination of these street protests reveals that each has its own agenda. Some White Shirts have formed a "10,000 people bid farewell to Chung-chiu." Theirs was largely an expression of sentiments. Other protest banners invariably begin with "We Oppose... " signifying their opposition to specific policies. They can be further subdivided into several categories. The first category opposes the exercise of public authority, based on personal interests. Examples include those opposed to the demolition of Wenlin Yuan, Ta Pu, and the eastward relocation of the Tainan railway line. These pertain to land expropriation. The second category of protestor is concerned about human lives, safety, and rights. Examples include those demanding the abolition of nuclear power and those protesting abuse within the military. These protests are more universal in their concerns. The third category of protestor is concerned about the Chinese mainland. Examples include those opposed to TISA and media monopolies. These have "anti-China" overtones. Members of these protest movements often overlap.

In mature democracies, different public interests expressing different views is normal. It is nothing to be concerned about. Take Taiwan. White Shirts constitute the largest number of protestors on Ketegelan Boulevard. They have the greatest influence, But if one examines their motives, their moderate behavior, and their single-mindedness, one realizes they are the least worrisome of all. These protestors include the "Mothers Alliance for the Oversight of Nuclear Power Plants." These protestors are all examples of rational expression of opinion. By contrast, the anti-Ta Pu protestors are considered "outsider" by the local residents. They have escalated their protests to the point where they are demanding the "dismantling of government." They even forced their way into the Interior Ministry. They even used "civil disobedience" to rationalize their conduct. They have made the public uneasy.

Social protests have returned to the streets of Taiwan. The most intriguing question is: Why? Take the categories of protests listed above. The third category of protestor is motivated by "anti-China" hatred. This is a continuation of traditional Green Camp political protests. The other two categories exhibit greater diversity, both in their concerns and their constituency. They show greater autonomy, but also involve considerable danger. Regardless, together they reflect a failure in the machinery of state. This failure forces people to speak out and vent their anger in the streets.

This failure of the machinery of state refers to more than the executive branch and Ma's leadership. It includes central and local government representative bodies. It includes the opposition parties. All are caught up in negativity, regression, or passivity. Simply put, the government is either less and less able or less and less concerned about solving peoples' problems. This includes cross-ministry and cross-party entities. Long-standing parochialism and selfishness has created problems. This has led to hampered coordination, limited cooperation, and even outright Schadenfreude. This has prevented government and opposition agencies from responding effectively to public expectations. They have tied each other up in knots, making it impossible to get anything done. The ruling party must be alert to this, and the opposition must as well.

The most obvious example is the retention or abolition of nuclear power plants. A public referendum should be a last resort in a democracy. But the opposition DPP has made its calculations, and is dragging its feet. The public is not even getting the chance to vote in a referendum. Take TISA for example. Only the legislature can effectively resolve the issue. But the legislature remains deadlocked. Therefore the ruling and opposition parties should demand a "Ma Su Debate" to ensure that it becomes a reality. In recent years, Taiwan resembles a magician who swallows poison. He uses the most extreme methods in his magic act. Every time his thrilling tricks depletes everyones' energy. In the end, he may even lose his own life.

The administration always waits until after the fact to communicate with the public. The legislature views "harmony" as more important than convening sessions. The Control Yuan feels it "may as well close up shop." The opposition DPP is content to watch as the ruling party embarrasses itself. This leads to political impotence. This leads to street protests. The machinery of state becomes the tail wagging the dog. Those truly lost, are society's silent majority.
 
社會抗爭何以重新在街頭興起？
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.08.26 02:53 am

延續去年的文林苑反都更行動，今年以來，台灣的街頭抗爭活動有日益加劇的趨勢。從全民不分階層皆關注的反核運動，到凱道廿萬白衫軍的湧現；包括反大埔拆遷、反台南鐵路東移事件，乃至反媒體壟斷聯盟、反服貿行動聯盟的活動，都顯示台灣社會的不滿情緒正在經歷新一波的大爆發。

值得注意的是，其中有些抗爭行動，已超乎傳統政治意識形態之爭，不再像過去一樣能由綠營一手主導、操控或幕後支援。甚至，有些活動非常有意識地與民進黨保持距離，拒絕其參與，以免受到「汙染」。從「去政治化」的角度看，社會抗議活動的「自主化」傾向，確有可喜之處；然而，從若干抗爭行動流於泛道德化且無限上綱，而朝野均無力對應，也讓人看到台灣政治虛無及失能的危機。

仔細觀察，這些街頭示威活動，主題其實各不相同。其中，除了白衫軍的動員是以「萬人送仲丘」的感性訴求為號召外，其他運動幾乎無一例外地標舉「反」的旗號，指名要打倒特定的政策。若進一步細分，大約可歸為幾類：一是從個人權益觀點對抗公權力的行使，如文林苑、大埔和台南鐵路東移抗爭，皆與土地徵收有關；二是關於生命安全和基本人權的議題，如核四存廢之爭和軍中凌虐問題，具有更大的普遍性；三是基於對中國大陸的不安，如反服貿、反媒體壟斷皆均帶有「反中」色彩，成員也有重疊。

在成熟民主國家，代表不同利益或意見的民眾組合發出不同聲音，原本是很正常的事，也毋需過度憂慮。以台灣的情況看，凱道白衫軍示威的人數雖然最多，聲勢最大，但以其活動之理性、節制和聚焦看，其實反而最不值得擔憂。包括「媽媽監督核電廠聯盟」合唱反核，也都屬理性的意見表達。倒是像反大埔事件，除被當地人指為「外來」，更將行動上綱至「拆政府」，乃至實際「攻入」內政部，甚至引「公民不服從運動」合理化自己的行為，則讓其他民眾感到不安。

社會抗議行動重回台灣街頭，更耐人咀嚼的部分，其實是它的成因。從上述幾類示威來看，第三類因「反中」而發的抗爭，比較是延續了綠營傳統的政治抗爭調性；其餘兩類，都顯示台灣社會關注的議題和動員成分更為多元，有更大的自主性，但也有不小的危險。但無論如何，它們所共同反映的，都是國家機器運作的失效，而迫使人民必須在街頭找尋自己發聲或宣洩的管道。

這裡所謂「國家機器」的失效，不單單是指馬政府領導的行政部門，還包括中央與地方的代議機構，更包括在野政黨扮演的政治角色，都陷於一種消極、退化，或旁觀的狀態。簡單地說，政府解決問題的能力退化或對人民變得漠不關心，包括跨部門、跨政黨間因為長期的本位主義和自私心理作祟，而怠於協調、吝於合作，甚至存心想看對手出糗；其結果，不僅朝野各部門均無法對人民的期待作出有效的反應，更將彼此打結卡死，無法運作。這點，不僅執政黨必須深切自覺，反對黨更應高度警惕。

最明顯的例子是，若要決定核四的存廢，「公投」應該是體制內最後的民主手段了，但在反對黨的精算和牽拖下，人民卻連公投的門票都拿不到。以服貿協議為例，唯一有效的管道是立法部門的決議，但此一管道又被協商制度鎖死，因此朝野須另闢「馬蘇大辯論」的蹊徑，以維持演出的進行。這幾年，台灣政治像一個表演吞毒藥的術士，每次都要用最極端的手法、用最驚險的步數來耗光大家的能量；最後，可能把自己的性命也賠了進去。

如果行政部門總是要等到事後才溝通，如果立法部門覺得「和諧」比開會重要，如果監察院覺得自己「關了比較好」，如果在野黨覺得坐視執政黨出糗就可以了；如此，政治力虛無的結果，就是把發言權讓位給街頭抗爭者，使國家機器淪為「尾巴搖狗」。而真正失落的，則是社會中沉默的大多數。