Wednesday, December 11, 2013

The DPP: Mired in the Past

The DPP: Mired in the Past
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
December 12, 2013


Summary: Let us be blunt. The DPP started out as an "outside the KMT" political organization. It grew strong because it pursued social justice. Today the DPP spares no effort in its pursuit of power. Its pursuit of power has clearly replaced its former pursuit of social justice. The means by which it pursues power have clearly replaced its former principles and ideals. As a result, it can no longer persuade the masses to follow. Therefore the "Princes of the Five Cities" is not merely a faded myth, but a political fact.

Full text below:

The DPP is holding its Taipei City and Xinbei City party primaries. This has led political wags to joke about the "Princes of the Five Cities," and underscored the Green Camp generational gap. Yu Shyi-kun handily defeated Chuang Shuo Han at the polls and won the Xinbei City primaries. That is nothing to wonder at. Annette Lu recently blasted her opponents in Taipei, asking "What contribution have young people made to democracy?" As one can see, the Green Camp generational gap has deeper structural causes.

Consider the central leadership and the major DPP factions. They still consist mostly of Formosa Incident leaders and defense attorneys. This means that although Taiwan has undergone vast changes over the past two decades, the DPP itself has remained frozen in time. This has two implications. One. Consider the internal changing of the guard. The party elders who founded the party remain active and refuse to step down, preventing the rise of a newer generation of party leaders. Two. Consider the ideological implications. The party elders cling to rigid theories about checks and balances, and outdated ideas about cross-Strait and international relations. They are unable to deal with the problems that confront Taiwan today. The DPP remains oblivious. It does not know how to reform itself. The former failing affects the evolution of the DPP. The latter failing undermines the progress of Taiwan.

The DPP remains frozen in time. Internally, this has prevented a changing of the guard. Even the "Old School" KMT has undergone three generational changes, from Lee Teng-hui to Lien Chan to Ma Ying-jeou. By contrast the DPP remains senile. This is true even when compared to the Mainland. Even the authoritarian Chinese Communist Party has developed a decade old system for its changing of the guard. Over the past twenty years, the baton has passed smoothly from Jiang Zemin to Hu Jintao to Xi Jinping. By contrast, the once youthful and energetic DPP is undergoing a young vs. old power struggle. This is deeply regrettable.

Consider the party's political path. The DPP remains frozen in time. This has led to a disconnect between it and society. The Democratic Progressive Party was originally an opposition party. It opposed the KMT's authoritarian rule and one-party monopoly. Under the circumstancs, its obstructionist strategy could be read as idealism and progressiveness. But the nation has undergone two ruling party changes. The Kuomintang was once cast as demonic. Now it has been revealed to be merely mediocre. Yet the DPP still persists in demonizing its opponent. The problems to be solved require professionals in environmentalism, public safety, and other matters. But the DPP is unable to offer any professional vision of its own. Its idealism often comes across as hollow. The DPP often flip flops. It says one thing when in power, and in flagrant self-contradiction, something else when it is not.

The list of examples is endless. For example, when in power, the Democratic Progressive Party repeatedly stopped and restarted construction on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. But when it found itself out of power, it engaged in obstructionism and demanded the total abolition of nuclear power generation. When in power, it quietly allowed U.S. beef imports. When it found itself out of power, it categorically opposed them. When in power, it flung the doors wide open on government allowances and benefits. When it found itself out of power, it blasted the same measures as fiscally destructive.

Consider an even more obvious example -- the DPP's obstinate foot-dragging on cross-Strait policy. Over the past two decades, the Mainland has undergone Glastnost. It has changed from an Iron Curtain country to the world's factory. It has become the world's second largest economy. But the pro-Taiwan independence Democratic Progressive Party has no idea how to deal with this dramatic transformation. On the one hand, it persists in attacking the KMT's cross-Strait policy to cover up its own unworkable isolationist approach to "loving Taiwan." On the other hand, it restricts Taiwan businesses and cross-Strait exchanges, in order to protect the Holy Grail of Taiwan independence. It opposes ECFA. It opposes TISA. The DPP's thinking remains mired in the same two decades old Sinophobia. Over the past two decades, the world has become flat. Only the DPP's Taiwan Strait has become deeper. Taiwan has become more isolated, more closed. For this the DPP bears enormous responsibility.

Annette Lu asked, "What contributions have young people made to democracy?" This revealed more than her own egotism. It also revealed a political party's nostalgia, and reluctance to change with the times. Annette Lu fought the good fight. But her time is past.  The challenges that confront future generations must be dealt with by new generations. Otherwise, one will remain mired in two decades old ideology and friend versus foe dualism. How can Taiwan undergo transformation? How can it progress?

The DPP remains frozen in history. It cannot bring itself to pass the baton to a new generation. This problem is not limited to the Green Camp. It undermines political, economic, and social evolution on Taiwan. Admittedly, The DPP was once a major force in promoting progress on Taiwan. It introduced new faces to the scene. But in recent years, this force has diminished. The result has been its current state of degeneration. Green Government died, but was never given a thorough autopsy. The DPP never engaged in soul-searching over Chen Shui-bian's malfeasance and corruption.

Let us be blunt. The DPP started out as an "outside the KMT" political organization. It grew strong because it pursued social justice. Today the DPP spares no effort in its pursuit of power. Its pursuit of power has clearly replaced its former pursuit of social justice. The means by which it pursues power have clearly replaced its former principles and ideals. As a result, it can no longer persuade the masses to follow. Therefore the "Princes of the Five Cities" is not merely a faded myth, but a political fact.
 
民進黨歷史感的停滯與世代困境
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.12.12 03:54 am

民進黨北二都的黨內初選,引起了外界「五府千歲」之譏,也暴露了綠營內部世代交替的困境。游錫?在新北市民調輕易擊敗莊碩漢贏得初選,固不足奇;而呂秀蓮近日在台北市猛烈砲轟對手:「年輕人對民主有何貢獻?」則可看出綠營的世代困境有著更深的結構根源。

放眼民進黨中央和各大派系,主要仍是美麗島世代及律師世代在當家,這意味,以台灣廿幾年的時空變化之深鉅,在民進黨內,歷史感卻是凝固了。所謂凝固,有兩個意涵:一,從內部的人事更替看,創黨元老的活躍不退,阻滯了中生代及新生代的進路與崛起;二,從意識形態面看,大老僵固的制衡論、過時的兩岸觀、和陳舊的國際視野,皆已無法應付今天的台灣形勢,而民進黨卻不自覺,亦不知如何調整。前者,影響了民進黨的進化;後者,則拖累了台灣的進步。

民進黨這種時空凝滯的現象,表現在內部交班上,較之已歷經李登輝、連戰、馬英九三代更替的百年老店國民黨,猶顯老態龍鍾。若與對岸相比,連集權統治的中國共產黨都已發展出十年換屆的穩健交棒制度,近廿年江澤民、胡錦濤、習近平的順利傳承,對照之下,曾經年輕氣盛的民進黨如今卻演出老少爭鋒的景象,令人唏噓。

若從問政路線看,民進黨歷史感的凝滯,更造成了它和社會及時勢的脫節。民進黨最初的反對路線,是針對國民黨的威權統治及一黨獨大而發;在那樣的情境下,它的許多杯葛策略都比較容易被賦與理想性質和進步色彩。但隨著兩度政黨輪替的推演,揭掉「妖魔化」外衣的國民黨,露出了「平庸化」政黨的內裡;然而,民進黨卻仍緊抱其「妖魔化」對手的戰術;問題是,在必須倚賴專業解決的財經、環保、安全等議題上,它自己卻拿不出有瞻矚的專業見解,常顯得理念虛空。更常見的,則是民進黨立場的搖擺反覆,執政時說一套,在野時說另一套,自我矛盾。

這類的例子,不勝枚舉。例如,民進黨執政時對核四忽停忽建,在野時卻又為杯葛而主張全面廢核;執政時悄悄開放美牛,在野時又全面杯葛;執政時對津貼及福利政策大開善門,在野時卻痛批此舉會使財政更加惡化。

更突出的例子,則表現在它的兩岸政策的僵固與被動上。廿年間,中國大陸在開放政策下從一個鐵幕國家變成了世界工廠,更成為世界第二大經濟體;但是,靠著鼓吹台獨起家的民進黨,卻始終不知如何應對這樣的形勢變化。它只能一方面不斷攻擊國民黨的兩岸政策,以掩飾自己「鎖國愛台」主張的技窮;一方面力主限制台商、限制兩岸往來,以保護自己台獨「神主牌」於不墜。從反ECFA到反兩岸服貿協議,民進黨的思維仍然是廿多前那套一成不變的反中訴求;這廿年,全世界都變平了,只有民進黨的海峽變得更深。台灣這些年變得更孤立、更封閉,民進黨要負很大的責任。

呂秀蓮那句「年輕人對民主有什麼貢獻」,暴露的不只是她個人的驕傲,也反映了一個政黨留戀昔日榮景、不願與時俱進的心情。呂秀蓮打過的美好戰役,早已結束;未來世代要面對的挑戰,必須交給新世代來承擔。否則,一直停留在廿多年前的意識形態及敵友想像上,台灣如何轉型?如何進步?

民進黨歷史感的停滯及世代交替的困境,其實不只是綠營內部的問題,也牽動著整個台灣的政經和社會發展。不可否認,民進黨曾經是推動台灣進步的重要力量,也曾經出現過新人輩出的榮景;然而,這股力量近年卻不斷消退,以致惡化成今天的景象。其間最重要的關鍵,是綠色執政的失敗沒有獲得徹底檢討,陳水扁的貪瀆失德未曾在黨內有過深刻反省。

更一針見血地說,民進黨當年之所以從「黨外」崛起,進而壯大,是因為它不斷試圖追求「社會正義」;而如今,民進黨用盡手段追求的,不過是要滿足自己「執政的欲望」。很顯然,它追求執政的欲望已膨脹到失去對時代與社會的回應能力,而它的追求手段又投機到看不出原則與理想,難再召喚群眾追隨。就這個意義而言,「五府千歲」不只是褪色的神話,而是困住的政治現實。

No comments: