Chairman Su's Anxieties About Losing Power Will Harm DPP

Chairman Su's Anxieties About Losing Power Will Harm DPP
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 28, 2012

Summary: Few political parties in democratic nations are like DPP. The DPP may be the ruling party or in the opposition. But it never seems to be able to rid itself of its bad habits. It takes to the streets at the drop of a hat. It apparently needs protests to remind itself that it still exists. It's virtually a case of "I protest, therefore I am." Most Democratic Progressive Party leaders reflexively resort to mass movements whenever they find themselves facing a crisis of confidence. DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang has organized a "Raging Citizens Protest March." But frankly, the only reason for the protest march is to firm up Su's hold on power.

Full Text below:

Few political parties in democratic nations are like DPP. The DPP may be the ruling party or in the opposition. But it never seems to be able to rid itself of its bad habits. It takes to the streets at the drop of a hat. It apparently needs protests to remind itself that it still exists. It's virtually a case of "I protest, therefore I am." Most Democratic Progressive Party leaders reflexively resort to mass movements whenever they find themselves facing a crisis of confidence. DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang has organized a "Raging Citizens Protest March." But frankly, the only reason for the protest march is to firm up Su's hold on power.

The DPP party princes know the score. They know that the best defense is a good offense. Toward the end of Chen Shui-bian's presidency, the First Family corruption scandals came to light. Outside the DPP, the anti-corruption movement demanded that the president step down. Inside the DPP, party leaders demanded house-cleaning. Chen Shui-bian used an old trick to defuse the crisis. He mobilized the masses to consolidate the leadership. Similarly, during the Taipei mayoral election, he deliberately downplayed the political colorations of the contending parties. Su Tseng-chang constantly shouts "Transcend!" But now he is eager to return to the streets. Like Chen Shui-bian, he is attempting to use internal pressure to effect external change.

Earlier this year the DPP lost the presidential election, despite considerable political momentum. Calls are being heard from inside the party, demanding a pragmatic cross-Strait policy. Su Tseng-chang is the most popular of the party princes. He took over as party chairman in May. Most DPP supporters are pinning their hopes on him. The Ma administration raised both gasoline prices and electricity rates. It imposed a capital gains tax. These provoked intense controversy. President Ma's leadership is in question. Public support is plummeting. This is the ideal time for the opposition DPP to strut its stuff. It is also the time for Su Tseng-chang to demonstrate his leadership.

Su Tseng-chang convened several "open forums." He allowed everyone to speak his peace. But he failed to offer any proposals or policies of his own. Middle-aged party leaders have become frustrated. Julian J. Kuo criticized him. He said, "Leaders must offer solutions to problems. They have to do more than just organize book club meetings." He put it even more bluntly. He said Su Tseng-chang was "afraid of losing power." That is why Su is afraid to implement Taiwan's most desperately needed reforms.

Put simply, Julian J. Kuo said the emperor was naked. During the DPP party chairmanship election, Su's rivals challenged him. They said Su Tseng-chang has his eye on the presidency. But as party chairman, Su cannot afford to be wishy-washy. He must have the courage to push for radical reform. Unfortunately for Su, their criticisms were dead on.

The DPP established a China Affairs Committee. The public hoped Frank Hsieh would be made Committee Convener. Frank Hsieh is the only DPP leader offering a way for the DPP to communicate with the CCP. He has been walking the walk. In October, his "breaking the ice journey" paved the way for the highest level talks ever held between the DPP and the CCP. If DPP leaders had any vision, they would have made Frank Hsieh the leader of the DPP's cross-Strait policy reform effort. The DPP has nothing to show for a decade of cross-Strait policy reform. If Su Tseng-chang made peace with Frank Hsieh, it would help his own bid for higher office.

Such cooperation would be both a public and private benefit. Yet Su Tseng-chang shunned it. He publicly declared that Frank Hsieh's "different constitutions, different interpretations" was not a DPP position. Su eventually established a China Affairs Committee. But the committee merely studies the Mainland. It does not communicate with it. To establish such a hollow entity so late in the game, is to turn the clock back. Sure enough, Frank Hsieh realized what was going on, and resigned. Other DPP elders were not interested either. The committee was established three months ago. The DPP still cannot find enough people willing to become committee members. The so-called China Affairs Committee is an empty shell that merely goes through the motions.

The DPP missed an opportunity to transform the party. This was the result of Su Tseng-chang's myopia. Why was he afraid to adopt a pragmatic cross-Strait policy? The only motive that can explain his behavior is fear of losing power. Su was preoccupied with appeasing the Deep Greens. He was determined to defeat Tsai Ing-wen, his biggest rival in the DPP. He wanted an admission ticket to the presidential race. Su Tseng-chang was eager to pander to the Deep Greens. Cross-strait policy continues to stagnate. The January 13 "Raging Citizen Protest March" reflects Su Tseng-chang's anxieties about his hold on power. Nothing more

Su Tseng-chang is taking the DPP back onto the streets. This may enable him to consolidate his Green Camp leadership. But it also constitutes to a setback for the DPP. The DPP's "Raging Citizens Protest March" plagiarizes the name of the labor based "Raging Citizens Act Now" coalition, and twists the meaning of the coalition's protests. The ROC's largest opposition party is making fraudulent use of the name of an NGO dedicated to protecting the disadvantaged. This shows that the DPP has not grown since it was founded over 20 years ago. A trade unionist in the Raging Citizens Act Now coalition blasted the DPP. He asked, is the DPP so intellectually bankrupt that it must pirate the strategies of a tiny labor organization?

Su Tseng-chang is busy pandering to the Deep Greens. He knows only how to take to the streets. But even the Green Camp knows these tricks are outdated. DPP heavyweight Su Huan-chih was blunt. He said offering policy proposals is more important than organizing a "Raging Citizens Protest March." This criticism was leveled at the DPP by one of its own. Su Huan-chi said Su Tseng-chang's political calculations were made purely for the sake of personal power. Unfortunately the party lacks the ability to offer sound policies. It lacks the ability to reacquire power. A leader who fails to understand policy, can never become president.
   
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2012.12.28
社論－蘇主席的權力焦慮症 將害了民進黨
本報訊

    　全世界民主國家的政黨，很少有像民進黨一樣，不論執政或在野時期，都無法擺脫上街頭的慣性，簡直到了「我遊行故我在」的地步；事實上，多數民進黨領導人只要面對權力危機，就會本能的訴諸群眾運動，民進黨黨主席蘇貞昌日前發起「火大遊行」，說穿了，就是為了要抓回已經搖搖欲墜的領導權。

    　民進黨天王們深知，攻擊就是最好的防禦。陳水扁擔任總統末期，第一家庭的貪腐案逐漸現形，外有要求總統下台的反貪腐運動，內有民進黨菁英要求自清的聲浪，陳水扁當時化解危機的伎倆，就是動員群眾來鞏固領導中心。同樣的，在台北市長選舉時刻意淡化政黨色彩、不斷喊「超越」的蘇貞昌，近來卻急於重返街頭路線，和當年的陳水扁異曲同工，就是為了要將內部壓力外部化。

    　今年初，民進黨以極高的聲勢輸掉總統大選，黨內出現反省聲浪，要求提出務實的兩岸路線，因此，該黨最具人氣的天王蘇貞昌五月接任黨主席，各界寄以厚望；尤其，馬政府深陷油電雙漲、課徵證所稅風暴，馬總統領導風格備受質疑，民意支持度直線下墜，理論上，這正是在野黨大顯身手的好時機，也是蘇貞昌展現領導能力的時刻。

    　但是，蘇貞昌除了召開幾次「Open講論壇」、讓大家各言所志之外，卻毫無能力提出主張、政策，黨內中生代紛感不耐，郭正亮批評，「領導人要針對問題拿出答案，不能一直開讀書會」！他更直言，蘇貞昌正是因為「害怕失去權力」，不敢面對台灣最需要的改革。

    　事實上，郭正亮正是點出國王沒有穿新衣的那個人，民進黨黨主席選舉時，對手就曾質疑，志在總統大位的蘇貞昌，擔任黨主席可能會畏首畏尾、無法大刀闊斧的改革，此一批評果然不幸而言中。

    　就以民進黨成立中國事務委員會為例，各界都看好由黨內大老謝長廷出任召集人，因為，謝長廷不但是目前民進黨內唯一有能力提出民共交流模式的人，他更身體力行，在十月進行了民進黨最高職務人士的兩岸破冰之旅。如果是大有為的民進黨領導人，必然會委請謝長廷主導民進黨兩岸政策改革，一來，可藉此讓民進黨耗費十年卻一無所成的兩岸轉型工作，畢其功於一役；二來，蘇貞昌若能趁機和謝長廷和解，對於自己登上大位，將是莫大的助力。

    　這是於公於私都有利的合作，蘇貞昌卻捨此不由，他公開表示，謝長廷的「憲法各表」，並非民進黨主張。蘇最後雖然成立了中國事務委員會，但委員會只有研究而沒有交流功能。這樣一套走回頭路的組織，果然讓謝長廷知難而退，其他的民進黨大老也沒興趣，因此成立至今已三個月，連委員都找不齊，所謂的中國事務委員會，完全是虛應故事的官樣文章。

    　錯失民進黨轉型良機，這是蘇貞昌的短視，但他為何不敢走向務實的兩岸政策，一心只想安撫深綠，那就只有權力動機可以解釋了。為了要打敗民進黨內的強勁對手蔡英文，取得總統大選門票，蘇貞昌急於拉攏深綠陣營，從兩岸政策渟滯不前，到一月十三日的火大遊行，反映的無非就是蘇貞昌的權力焦慮症。

    　只是，蘇貞昌這次把民進黨帶回街頭，也許能讓他取得綠營的領導權，但卻也是民進黨的倒退。事實上，民進黨的「火大遊行」，冒用了工運團體「火大行動聯盟」的名稱，不但扭曲了弱勢團體當年的抗爭精神，更嚴重的是，堂堂最大在野黨還要冒用弱勢團體的名號，完全凸顯出，創黨二十幾年來，民進黨實在沒有太大的長進，套一句火盟工運人士的批評，民進黨難道是沒招了，竟然自願成為工運團體的山寨版。

    　雖然蘇貞昌一心要討好深綠，但只會上街頭，連綠營都認為這是過時的招數，民進黨大將蘇煥智就直言，提出對策主張，比搞火大遊行重要。這是自己人的批評，所言甚是；蘇貞昌機關算盡，全是為了權力，但是一個沒有能力提出政策的政黨，是無法重新贏回執政權的，而一位不懂政策的領導人，更是永遠不可能登上總統大位。