Print

Mail

wiki links

Finding the chain of equivalence

Following the lifting of martial law, the nation's democracy has moved forward by leaps and bounds. From the full-scale election of the legislature to the direct election of the president, provincial governor and city mayors, from the freezing of the provincial government to the abolition of the National Assembly, from the transfer of power in 2000 to the current heated referendum debate, there have always been people who worried that the sky would fall and who therefore tried to apply the brakes.

But while they were looking for the brake pedal, the people swiftly moved on to the next stage.

Looking back at the elections to increase the number of legislators in the legislature ("unconstitutional"), the founding of new political parties under the new-party ban ("illegal") and the alarmist statements made in the book T-day published in 1994 ("war"), we see that any kind of positive or negative statement may be the subject of gradually increasing attention and debate. But through the democratic process, the result is an advancement of the general situation. I guess the referendum will bring the same result.

But are there also some demands that in spite of the democratic process remain in the dark, forgotten. Political maneuvering inevitably requires a representative chain of equivalence relations [A=B=C=D, and so on] in order to bring about popular cohesion, promote a wave of collective activities, and bring legitimacy to the discourse.

"Democracy" and "people" are two of the most important symbols of general representativeness in modern politics, but if the two cannot be included on the actual political battlefield to become part of a chain of equivalence in a meaningful discourse, they will remain empty concepts.

"People" thus must be equated with the Chinese Communist Party and Mao Zedong (毛澤東).

For contemporary Americans, liberal democracy is equated with the US Constitution, the American way of life, US diplomacy and anti-terrorism. The greatest differences of understanding this equation are no more than the question of whether terrorism should be opposed in the manner advocated by US President George W. Bush.

In our chain-of-equivalence conflict, "Taiwan," "Taiwanese people," "Taiwanese sovereignty and independence," "democratic reform" and "referendum" are equated with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), the pan-green camp and former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), while "the Taiwanese people," "the happiness of the people of Taiwan," and "fighting for the economy" are equated with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the People First Party (PFP) and the Lien Chan (連戰)-James Soong (宋楚瑜) presidential ticket.

Because there really is some distance between the symbols for Taiwan on the one hand, and the Lien-Soong ticket on the other hand, the pan-blue camp is forced to promote a system of negative equations, such as equating the referendum to war, and the DPP is forced to promote provocation of ethnic groups and so on.

It is worth noticing that "black gold" -- which used to stick to the KMT like glue -- this time around has been pushed to the rear. Maybe it is like Kao Lang (高朗) said -- most of the "black gold" disease disappeared when the KMT went into opposition.

But doesn't this carry the implication that "black gold" in fact is "white gold," and even a source of nourishment for this kind of liberal democratic government, and that this kind of government is a crucial link in the food chain of modern vested interests?

One important function of the chain-of-equivalence discourse is that it hides this food chain. But people are not stupid, and it is impossible that they will not see the existence of the food chain.

Referendums on the national level -- Taiwan's, for example -- risk reducing the complexity of the chain of equivalence, but by refusing to vote we instead place ourselves in the midst of a reductive polarized opposition, using passive inaction to actively verify and even expand the reduction of the chain of equivalence, thereby covering up reflection over the food chain -- for example, opposition to missile purchases.

The Lafayette frigate-related Yin Ching-feng (尹清楓) case made us see how the Taiwanese people fattened pan-blue politicians and international arms dealers. How can they not say "no" to US arms dealers now that they are given the opportunity?

Letting there be conflict over seemingly indisputable options is to dissolve reductive equivalence. The chain of equivalence and the food chain will not disappear. We may not be able to do more than to demystify the former and expose the latter.

Yen Chueh-an is a law professor at National Taiwan University.

Translated by Perry Svensson
This story has been viewed 2176 times.