台灣民主政治非完美 / Taiwan's Democracy Is Far From Perfect

台灣民主政治非完美 李怡	Taiwan's Democracy Is Far From Perfect Li Yi
三月，台灣總統大選，不僅台灣人民全情投入，而且也使全球華人矚目，北京當局與國際社會，也關心大選的結果。	THE PRESIDENTIAL election in Taiwan last month aroused the fervour of the entire population on the island. Moreover, it grabbed the attention of the Beijing leadership and the international community alike, as well as that of the ethnic Chinese across the world.
這是台灣有史以來第二次全民投票選總統了。而且與第一次不一樣，這次沒有蔣經國指定的繼承人李登輝強勢參選，而是三強鼎立，競爭激烈，究竟鹿死誰手，難以逆料。因此，在台灣，真的是幾乎人人投入，體現了以民為主的時代。人民在選舉期間，就是“頭家”，握有決定國家領導人的莫大的權力。	This is the second time that the Taiwanese have chosen their president by direct voting. In the first election years ago, Lee Teng-hui was presented as the candidate strongly endorsed by the late President Chiang Ching-kuo. By contrast, in the recent poll, three strong teams of candidates contended for the presidency and people could hardly tell the results until they were announced. Almost every Taiwanese was involved, showing that the era of democracy had arrived. Throughout the campaigning, the people turned into the “boss” who wielded the almighty power of selecting the leader of the island.
從專權政治到民主政治，確實有很大的改變。專權政治是由一人、一黨做主，民主政治則是由全民做主。	It has been a drastic change from autocracy to democracy. Autocracy allows one person or one political party to decide everything, whereas democracy requires that all people make decisions together.
一人做主與全民做主，當然有本質上的區別。只不過，“做主”則是一樣的。儘管一人做主所行使的做主權力天天都存在，而全民做主則只是四年行使一次權力，但所行使的權力也是絕對的。	Herein, of course, lies a fundamental difference in the way decisions are made. The power to make decisions has remained an absolute one, though the autocrat could exercise the power every day whereas the whole population do so only once in four years.
一人做主的專權政治時代，獨裁者身邊總有許多阿諛逢迎的佞臣，獨裁者愛聽各種讚美他的好話，不要聽批評他的諫言。	In the old days of autocracy, around the monarch there was always a throng of toady courtiers. The dictator enjoyed all sorts of praise and flattery but hated frank criticism and admonition.
全民做主的時代，在全民行使投票權的時候，也有各候選人講些全民愛聽的好話，比如說要搞好經濟，增加全民的收入；說要進行政治改革，結束黑金政治；說要將党營事業付諸信託，政黨不再經營企業。	When decisions are made by all people, particularly when they are exercising their right to vote, there are also candidates who try to please the voters with sweet talks. For example, they promise to boost economy and raise income for the population; to carry out political reforms and put an end to money politics; or to hand the ruling-party-linked businesses over to the custody of trust companies and delink all political parties from business interests.
8年前美國總統大選，克林頓說要將中國人權狀況與美國是否給中國最惠國待遇直接掛鈎，這是美國老百姓愛聽的話，但克林頓上台後，卻不但不“直接掛鈎”，而且乾脆脫鉤。	In 1992, when campaigning in the presidential election in the United States, candidate Bill Clinton promised to directly link China’s human rights records with Washington’s decision on the Most Favoured Nation status for Beijing. That was nice to hear for the American voters. After entering White House, however, President Clinton did nothing to link the one with the other. Instead, he just delinked them.
專權政治時代，各地要買官的人紛紛向獨裁者獻上禮品，包括各地的珍寶、字畫、美女。全民做主的時代，在全民要行使投票權的時候，候選人也向“做主”的人民送上各種禮品，包括承諾會減稅，會增加福利。	Under the system of monarchy, greedy position-hunters would present the ruler with gifts, including treasures collected across the country, precious works of art, and pretty women. Under the system of democracy, especially during the electoral campaigning, candidates would present the voters with all kinds of gifts, including promises of tax cuts and welfare perks.
連戰提出將九年免費教育增加至12年，並主張“提高薪資特別扣除額”（即免稅額）的減稅措施。這些支票若予兌現，將大幅度減少財政收入、增加財政開支，光是提高免稅額一項，估計就會導致政府稅收減少74億元（台幣）。	Lien Chan, the ruling party’s presidential candidate in Taiwan, promised to extend the 9-year free education to 12 years and offered special tax rebates to allow the people to pay less to the government’s coffers. Should such vote-seeking promises be honoured, the financial revenue would be slashed and expenditures puffed up. For example, the special tax rebates alone would cut the tax revenue by NT$7.4 billion (S$414.4 million).
此外，各地方縣市，也趁選舉的機會，向中央要求增加地方預算撥款，有的縣要求增加的金額達十億元，執政黨為了選票，也一一允准。	Local administrations also tried to profit from the situation. They asked the central government for greater budget. Some counties, for instance, asked for a top-up of NT$1 billion (S$56.1 million) and got it, because the ruling party was keen to garner votes.
專權政治的時代，開明君主曾告誡不要“損百姓”，“若損百姓以奉其身，猶割脛以啖腹，腹飽而身斃”（見《貞觀政要》）。意思是，倘若君主苛斂，使老百姓疲弊痛苦，這就跟割下自己小腿的肉來充飢沒有兩樣。肚子飽了，卻難免一死。	Even an enlightened monarch in imperial China knew better than to overtax his people. Emperor Tai-zong of the Tang Dynasty warned of the consequences of fleecing the population to satisfy the ruler’s greed. “It is like cutting flesh off your own leg and feeding on it – your hunger is allayed but you die soon after,” he said, according to historical records.
以民為主的時代，老百姓又要政府減稅，又要政府加福利，無疑是“割脛啖腹”，若當選的政客將他所開的支票一一兌現，則百姓腹飽而國亡。因此，民主時代是逼政客說謊，因做主的百姓愛聽謊言，不說謊就不能當選。	Now, with democracy, the voters ask for tax cuts alongside welfare perks from the government. This is also like feeding on one’s own flesh. If the elected politicians honoured all the promises they have made, the people’s desires would be satisfied but the state would perish. So, democracy forces politicians to tell lies, because the would-be decision makers like lies. He who refuses to lie won’t get elected.
民主政治絕不是完美的制度，它只是至今為止，人類社會中弊端較少的制度而已。	Democracy is far from a perfect political system. It is merely a system that, so far in human history, has had fewer drawbacks.
(作者是前《九十年代》主編，資深政治評論家；本文原載香港《明報月刊》2000年3月號。)	[The author, editor of The Nineties, a defunct Hong Kong-based magazine, is a veteran political commentator. The source text was published in Ming Pao Monthly, March 2000.] (Translated by Allen Zhuang)
[ 原載新加坡《聯合早報》2000-04-10社論/言論/天下事 (Bilingual Section)]