Democracy and Progress: Goals more Pragmatic and Ambitious than Taiwan Independence

Democracy and Progress:
Goals more Pragmatic and Ambitious than Taiwan Independence
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 21, 2012

Summary: The Ma administration's record has been poor. But that does not mean the Green Camp will win the 2016 general election. The Green Camp is its own worst enemy. If the DPP cannot offer a cross-Strait policy that puts people at ease, voters may still cast their ballots for the KMT. Phasing out Taiwan independence is the DPP's lifeline. Democracy and progress are more pragmatic and ambitious goals than Taiwan independence. The shore is not far. The DPP need only turn its head.

Full Text below:

After a second change in ruling parties, the DPP watched as Chen Shui-bian entered prison, and Tsai Ying-wen lost the 2012 presidential election. These were major blows to its morale. The Ma administration's record has been poor. But that does not mean the Green Camp will win the 2016 general election. The Green Camp is its own worst enemy. If the DPP cannot offer a cross-Strait policy that puts people at ease, voters may still cast their ballots for the KMT.

Mainland China has risen. That is an incontrovertible fact. Taiwan and the Chinese mainland are in close proximity. Economic, trade, and social relations are close. But politically the two sides remain at loggerheads. This is a unique case that has no precedent, past or present, east or west. The primary task of anyone who assumes power on Taiwan is to deal with cross-Strait relations. Anyone who aspires to high office cannot afford to ignore or be cavalier about cross-Strait policy.

The facts are clear. The Democratic Progressive Party's hostility toward the Mainland makes it incapable of understanding the Mainland. It is incapable of dealing rationally with cross-Strait relations. The party must totally overhaul its Mainland policy. Otherwise it will remain an opposition party forever. The KMT will have to commit far more serious errors than merely being "clumsy." Otherwise it will not be displaced by the DPP. This is not merely something that Green Camp supporters do not want to see. This is something that everyone who cares about democracy on Taiwan do not want to see.

Today the DPP Central Standing Committee will discuss whether to establish a "China Affairs Committee." We would like to take this opportunity to express our hopes for the party.

The DPP is establishing a body dedicated to cross-Strait affairs. The gears are already in motion. But it has three hurdles to overcome. The first is the name of the body. The second is who will be in charge. The third is whether there will be a substantive change in the party's Mainland policy. Regarding who will be in charge, outsiders need not interfere. That is outside the scope of this article.

The DPP is considering three names for the body. They are "Mainland Affairs Department," "Cross-Strait Affairs Department," and "China Affairs Department." We recommend the first two alternatives. The DPP should not adopt the name "China Affairs Department." The name "China Affairs Department" implies "one nation on each side." This is something Beijing would have a hard time swallowing. What is the DPP's motive for establishing this body? Is it to carry one its confrontation with the Mainland? If so, then that is another matter. But if the DPP is genuine about wanting change, then it has no reason to put this stumbling block in its own way. Green Camp elder Huang Hsin-chieh once quipped, "We can promote Taiwan independence, but we cannot talk about it." Today, the Mainland is highly developed. The power gap between the two sides has widened. The situation is very different from the one Huang Hsin-chieh faced. DPP leaders today must be wiser than their predecessors.

The DPP may name the new body the "Mainland Affairs Department." But it still must confront the 1992 consensus. The CCP 18th National Congress Official Documents mentions the 1992 consensus. It is considered an important basis for cross-Strait consultations, mutual trust, and peaceful development. The DPP must offer a response. The party may establish a "Mainland Affairs Department." But if it refuses to recognize the 1992 consensus, the DPP will not be able to establish relations with the CCP. When the 2016 election rolls around its cross-Strait policy will remain the Green Camp Achilles Heel. In other words, if the DPP refuses to fundamentally change in its attitude toward the Mainland, the new "Mainland Affairs Department" will remain an empty gesture.

DPP party members may assume that accepting the 1992 consensus and forsaking Taiwan independence will negate the party's raison d'etre. In fact, that is not the case.

When the DPP was first founded, its mission was to defy authoritarianism. Its clarion call was the pursuit of democracy and progress. It was not Taiwan independence and Sinophobia. As a result, it inspired high hopes among many who wanted Taiwan to move toward constitutional democracy.

But in 1991 the party approved the Taiwan Independence Party Platform. As a result, the DPP lost the opportunity to interact with the Mainland for the sake of peace. It destroyed its chance to promote constitutional rule. During Chen Shui-bian's eight years in office, cross-Strait relations and constitutional rule were put in jeopardy. This is still fresh in memories of the ruling and opposition parties. The DPP must make a fresh start. If it fails to do so, it will hold back Taiwan's progress. Its sole function will be to satisfy the emotional needs of voters dissatisfied with the KMT.

The public envies bipartisan politics in Europe and the United States. But it is unable to experience it. Why? Because in these advanced countries national identity is a non-issue. The two parties can compete with each other over public livelihood issues. The political arena is dominated by public livelihood issues. As a result their democracies mature, naturally. Public livelihood is an issue over which compromise is possible. Unfortunately the DPP has become a Taiwan independence party. Every election and every legislative battle becomes all about reunification vs. independence. No time remains to delve into the details of public livelihood. Worse still, national identity issues often hinder the implementation of policies relating to public livelihood. Cross-Strait relations are increasingly volatile as a result of the sudden and perplexing ups and downs of Taiwan independence. Taiwan is currently in a recession. The wealth gap is widening. If we could set aside the issue of reunification vs. independence, the KMT and DPP could advance different policies on public livelihood. They could make full use of cross-Strait economic synergies. They could lead Taiwan out of its current predicament.

The Democratic Progressive Party's middle name is "progressive." This implies concern for the socially disadvantaged. Unfortunately, over the years, the DPP has been preoccupied with Taiwan independence. No debate or compromise is possible between left and right. There is only internecine warfare over reunification vs. independence. The DPP should replace its "China Affairs Department" with a "Mainland Affairs Department." It should accept the 1992 consensus. This would benefit not just cross-Strait interaction, but also the DPP during the next general election. It would help Taiwan return to constitutional rule. It would improve the people's livelihood.

Phasing out Taiwan independence is the DPP's lifeline. Democracy and progress are more pragmatic and ambitious goals than Taiwan independence. The shore is not far. The DPP need only turn its head.

民主進步：比台獨更務實遠大的目標
    2012-11-21
    中國時報

　二次政黨輪替之後，民進黨歷經陳水扁下獄、蔡英文二○一二敗選，氣勢大挫。雖然馬政府近來政績不佳，但並不代表二○一六大選必是綠營的天下。綠營的最大敵人，還是自己。如果民進黨拿不出讓人民放心的兩岸政策，選票可能還是流向國民黨。

　中國崛起已是不爭的事實。台灣與大陸近在咫尺，經貿及民間往來如此緊密，但是政治上卻與彼岸如此扞格，這是古今中外絕無僅有的特例。任何台灣的執政者，首要任務都得處理好兩岸關係。任何有意角逐大位者，也都不能敷衍、避談他的兩岸政策。

　事實擺在眼前，民進黨對大陸的敵意使其既無法了解對岸，也無從理順兩岸關係。該黨的大陸政策如不改弦更張，恐怕使它淪為永遠的在野黨。國民黨除非犯下比「笨拙」更嚴重的錯誤，將很難被民進黨取代。這不但是綠營支持者，也是關心台灣民主政治者不願看到的局面。

　民進黨今天的中常會將討論是否設立「中國事務部」，我們想趁此機會表達對該黨的最深期許。

　民進黨設立處理兩岸事務的專職機構，似乎已是箭在弦上，但下列三個關卡必須打通：第一是機構名稱，第二是主事者人選，第三是該黨大陸政策是否將有實質改變。有關人選問題，外人無須置喙，不屬本文討論範圍。

　現有的三個名稱「大陸事務部」、「兩岸事務部」、「中國事務部」，我們建議在前兩者擇一，不要採用「中國事務部」。因為「中國事務部」隱含「一邊一國」，這是強北京所難，但又無力逼其吞下。民進黨設此機構的目的如果是要與對岸繼續對抗，那麼另當別論。如果民進黨覺今是而昨非，那就沒有理由自己搬個大石頭，擋在面前。綠營前輩黃信介且曾說「台獨只能做不能說」，今日大陸的發展，與兩岸的差距，已迥異於黃信介當年所見者，民進黨今天的領導人，理應較其前人採取更有智慧的行徑才是。

　即便新設機構稱為「大陸事務部」，民進黨仍需務實面對「九二共識」。中共十八大正式文件已列入「九二共識」，將其作為開展協商、建立互信、推動兩岸關係和平發展的重要政治基礎。民進黨必須對此有所回應。該黨即使設了「大陸事務部」，若不承認九二共識，民共兩黨的交流仍舊無法展開。二○一六大選時，它仍是綠營的罩門。換言之，如果不根本改變對大陸態度，新設「大陸事務部」將缺少實質意義。

　民進黨人或許認為接受「九二共識」、放棄台獨目標似乎是使該黨喪失它的存在價值，其實不然。

　民進黨創黨之初，是以對抗威權體制、追求民主進步為號召，不是台獨反中。這使得許多希望見到台灣走向民主憲政的人士對其寄予厚望。

　但是，自從一九九一年台獨黨綱通過後，這個黨不但失去了與對岸和平互動的機會，也斷送了與憲政同步發展的可能。陳水扁八年任內在兩岸關係和憲政運作上掀起的驚濤駭浪，朝野記憶猶新。如果民進黨不改弦更張，那麼這個黨除了滿足對國民黨不滿的選民之情緒需求外，對台灣的健全發展終將是一負面因素。

　此外，國人羨慕歐美的兩黨政治而不可得。因為這些先進國家沒有國家認同問題，兩黨可以分據民生問題左右兩端，政治舞台長期都以民生議題為主軸。民主品質自然逐步提升，民生也可得到左右之間的妥協。然而，民進黨成為台獨黨後，台灣所有選舉以及國會對抗，都以統獨為主，不但無暇細論民生，更常因國家認同有異而阻礙民生政策推行。兩岸關係也因島內台獨勢力的起伏而陰晴不定、波譎雲詭。目前台灣社會經濟蕭條，貧富差距擴大，國內政治如果能放下統獨爭議，國民兩黨大可以提出不同的民生政策，充分運用兩岸經濟互補之處，帶領台灣脫離目前困境。

　民主進步黨黨名當中所謂「進步」，隱含關懷弱勢族群的理想。可惜多年來，在民進黨的台獨掛帥之下，台灣都沒有左右的辯論與協調，只有統獨的內耗與空轉。民進黨若能以「大陸事務部」取代「中國事務部」，並能進而接受「九二共識」，不但有利兩岸互動，有利民進黨下次大選，更有利於台灣的憲政走回正軌、民生處境得到改善。

　淡化台獨色彩是民進黨的生路。民主、進步更是比台獨更務實、更遠大的目標。彼岸不遠，回頭便是。