民主先生搞一言堂 / Mr Democracy's Dictatorial Rule

民主先生搞一言堂 李氣虹	Mr Democracy's Dictatorial Rule Lee Chih Horng
執政了55年的中國國民黨在台灣總統選舉中慘敗，斷送了“江山”，被西方稱為“民主先生”的李登輝的所作所為是主要導因。作者曾實地採訪台灣總統選舉，這是他的感言。	The KMT, which had ruled Taiwan for 55 years, lost in the recent presidential election on the island. The humiliating defeat was brought about mainly by none other than Lee Teng-hui, or Mr Democracy as dubbed by the West. Having covered the election in Taiwan, the author, a senior reporter with Lianhe Zaobao, shares his observations on the event.
3月18日揭曉的台灣總統選舉結果，為台灣政黨政治掀開了新的一頁。放眼整個亞太區域的民主化過程，這項選舉的結果有其普遍意義，也有其獨特模式，發人深省。	THE PRESIDENTIAL election in Taiwan, which ended on March 18, has opened a new chapter in the party politics on the island. Backgrounded with the democratisation process throughout the Asian Pacific region, the outcome of the election in Taiwan has been thought-provoking. Not only have the results reaffirmed certain universal truths, but the whole process has displayed some peculiar Taiwanese features.
首先，執政了55年的中國國民黨因為黨內分裂，宋楚瑜和連戰鷸蚌相爭，才造就民進党候選人陳水扁以略微多數的優勢當選，是公認不爭的事實。	First of all, the Nationalist Party of China, or Kuomintang (KMT), which had ruled Taiwan for 55 years, was defeated in the election at last. It is now indisputable that the in-fighting between James Soong and Lien Chan within KMT made it possible for Chen Shui-bian, presidential candidate of the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), to come to power with a narrow margin of majority votes.
這個事實的造成，與剛辭去國民黨主席、即將卸任的台灣總統李登輝有極大的關係。12年前，李登輝上臺成為第一位台灣省籍的總統和國民黨主席。為了鞏固並擴大其權力基礎，他除了在中央政府和中央黨部大量提拔台灣省籍人士外，在各項選舉中也支持地方上有實力、但評價卻極低的政治人物。	The fiasco for KMT has a lot to do with Lee Teng-hui, who was forced to step down as chairman of KMT and is to leave his post as president of Taiwan in May. Lee Teng-hui became the first indigenous president of Taiwan and chairman of KMT 12 years ago. To consolidate his power base, he promoted many Taiwanese to key positions in the government and KMT leadership, and supported influential but notorious native candidates in various elections.
這一策略除了使得國民黨內外省精英被孤立、排擠，以致選擇出走，一再削弱了國民黨的力量，也使得許多黑道人物得以“漂白”（從政），形成為人詬病的“黑金政治”。	These moves ended up isolating the cream of KMT, chiefly made up of mainlanders, and eventually forcing them to quit, thus sapping the strength of the ruling party. Meanwhile, a large number of native Taiwanese with criminal records were able to launder themselves clean by joining the power structure, thus giving rise to the much-condemned black-gold politics.
與此同時，李登輝也主導了意識形態的轉型，以便使他的政治動作合理化和正當化。從“台灣人的悲哀”到“台灣人出頭天”，李登輝在已故蔣經國總統晚年開放“報禁”和“黨禁”的基礎上，啟動了一股新的“去中國化”、民粹主義化的台灣本土意識思潮。	At the same time, Lee Teng-hui orchestrated a changeover of ideology across the island so as to justify and rationalise his many political moves. He played up the “sadness” of being a Taiwanese, and called on people to fight for a new era in which the indigenous Taiwanese would take the reign of power. This way, taking advantage of the liberalisation of the press and legalisation of political parties other than KMT as initiated by the late President Chiang Ching-kuo in his final years, Lee Teng-hui started a wave of localisation featuring populist appeals and attempts to make the island “non-Chinese”.
這股民粹主義的思潮固然給予台灣社會前所未有的思想言論自由，卻也使舊有政治體制的精英權威性和法律公信力受到質疑，國家認同和民族認同產生混亂。於是，社會秩序開始出現各種混亂現象，治安極度惡化。	True, the new changes helped to bring along unprecedented freedom of speech in Taiwanese society. Yet it also encouraged people to challenge the credibility of the original power structure and question the authority of law. Meanwhile, people got confused about their state and national identities. As a result, the social order was disrupted and public security worsened.
民粹主義的本土意識思潮，也使得台灣選民習慣以情緒化、簡單化和道德化的標準來衡量政治人物。從過去的“愛台灣”、“賣台集團”、“中共同路人”、“台獨”等政治標籤，到這次競選過程中的“興票案”、候選人的美國護照和產業的爭論，都是明顯的例子。	The populist localisation has wrought an over-emotional mindset in Taiwanese voters. They are apt to judge political figures by simplistic moral standards. In the past, they labelled candidates as persons who “love Taiwan” or “betray Taiwan”, as “fellow-travellers of the Chinese Communist Party”, or “independence advocates”. Now, in the recent campaigning, they raised such issues as the “Chung-hsing bill scandal”, candidates’ US citizenship and their properties in America.
政治人物和各競選陣營為了因應這種民粹本土意識，以口水戰和道德抹黑來攻擊對手，較少以施政理念來吸引選民。這種競選手段不單使得選戰高度激烈化，在選後如何彌平整個社會的政治激情，重新凝聚共識，變成新政府的一大挑戰。	To profit from the populist localisation, politicians and their campaigning aides resorted to war of words and smear campaigns against rivals instead of appealing to the voters with their platforms. Not only did such strategies make the process of campaigning highly charged but they have created difficulties for the newly-elected administration in smoothing away the political passion and restoring consensus among the divided people.
中央研究院院長李遠哲說：“政黨輪替是民主政治的常態”，但筆者認為，對權力的監督和制衡，才是民主政治的精髓所在。	“Rotation of ruling parties is normal in democracy,” said Lee Yuan-tseh, President of Academia Sinica, Taiwan. But I believe that, in reality, the essence of democracy lies in the check and balance of power.
一度被西方媒體譽為“民主先生”的李登輝，雖然讓台灣社會享有更大的言論自由，但在國民黨內卻沒有推動相應的民主改革，而是利用這個列寧式政黨固有的精英體制搞一言堂，以他個人的意志為全黨的意志。財雄勢大的國民黨缺乏像美國民主、共和兩黨那樣的初選體制，終因黨員內耗而喪失政權。	Lee Teng-hui, once lauded by the West as Mr Democracy, failed to carry out a democratic reform within KMT despite his success in bringing greater freedom to Taiwanese society. Taking advantage of the Leninist structure of KMT, Lee Teng-hui ruled by his own will alone, putting himself above the whole party. And, partly because Taiwan does not practise a system of primary elections similar to those in the US, KMT eventually lost in the election after its power and resources were consumed by in-fighting.
新當選的陳水扁，在立法院和國民大會中民進黨仍是少數黨的情況下，將成為弱勢總統。因此，不論他個人和民進党在主觀意願上如何希望鞏固並擴大得來不易的權力，都將受到宋楚瑜領導的親民黨和國民黨的有力制衡。	Chen Shui-bian will be a weak president, as DPP remains a minority both in the Legislative Yuan and the National Assembly, two sections of the law-making branch of the Taiwanese government. Therefore, however hard the new president and DPP strive to consolidate their hard-won power, they will be subject to the strong check and balance from KMT and People First Party led by James Soong.
今日的台灣社會無疑是一個思想言論自由的社會，但因為法律和公權力不斷受到民粹思想的衝擊，而導致社會秩序存在一定程度的混亂，其民主政治發展過程確有瑕疵。	No doubt, Taiwan today enjoys freedom of speech, but disorder of a certain extent is still plaguing the society because populism is weakening law and the government’s authority. The democracy of Taiwan is flawed.
但如果要把一個開展不到20年的民主體制，同美國已發展了超過200年的完善民主體從制相提並論，也有欠公平。至少從制衡與監督政府的意義上講，台灣總統選舉結果確實標誌著中國民主政治發展的一個新里程碑。	It would be unfair, however, to compare a democracy born less than 20 years ago with the democracy of the US which has evolved and improved over the past two centuries. At least, in terms of its function of checking and balancing the government, the results of the recent presidential election in Taiwan have marked a new stage in the progress for the Chinese people towards democracy.
[作者是《聯合早報》國際組高級記者]	[The author is a senior reporter with Lianhe Zaobao.] (Translated by Allen Zhuang)
[ 原載新加坡《聯合早報》2000-04-02 社論/言論/天下事 (Bilingual Section)]