Print

Mail

wiki links

Ephemeral gripes or lasting laws

`If these politicians do finally get the justice they say is being denied them, how are they to modify their claims that the law is unfair? That a lot of people were disappointed by the election result is one thing; to doubt the ability of legal procedures to resolve a controversy is another. If we don't believe that problems can be resolved by the law, are we to resort to lie detectors across the nation?'

The presidential election was a war of hate characterized by accusations. These accusations did not stop with the election's end, and have reached new heights in the gamut of various mass demonstrations.

The hatred never ends. From reading the English-language press, one would think that post-election Taiwan resembles a "third-world democracy," although political and press commentators here have dubbed these demonstrations "new democratic movements."

I'm afraid this phenomenon is hardly a one-time event, resulting as it does from heretofore undealt-with identities -- spanning national, class and geographical identifications -- that have been simmering for a long time.

These differences have irrationally justified a variety of accusations. The air is thick with these dubious slurs, and laws and institutions formerly relied upon in society are more and more embattled. If we wish to prevent Taiwan from coming apart at the seams, caught between these accusations and crises of trust, we should calmly examine this phenomenon and find out who should be held responsible. Have we been too tolerant of these politicians and mass media organizations accusing others without evidence to back up their claims?

Taiwanese politicians, regardless of their affiliations, are employing accusations as a major tool in political discussions, going on the principle that the first to speak wins the upper hand. According to this principle, the onus is on the accused to refute allegations and prove their innocence, no matter how substantial or flimsy the evidence against them may be. I have never conducted a scientific study on whether the political gains from following this logic warrant the glee with which politicians pursue it.

Yet the idea that the accuser does not have to come up with evidence to back accusations goes against the legal principle of sufficient evidence. Despite this, in recent years, we have seen countless politicians and media workers from across the political spectrum utter the words "someone told me" to quote anonymous sources, whose existence it is impossible to verify, to create major debates and command the attention of large audiences.

This phenomenon, and the logic behind it, reached a peak during this election. For example, the media intentionally played up, or down, accusations made by fugitive tycoon Chen Yu-hao (陳由豪). News organizations also have made a succession of specious reports accusing election officials of "creating the conditions for vote-rigging," in the words of commentator Nan Fang-shuo (南方朔). Even after the election they made accusations of cheating, going to the extent of upbraiding the Central Election Commission for announcing the winners of the election. This degree of intentional censure was by no means isolated.

Accusations should not be confused with the truth, and reason for suspicion does not equal factual evidence. Are these ridiculous assertions due to the fact that Taiwanese society is used to fuzzy logic? Are they the result of indulgence on the part of the populace? Or is it because Taiwanese politicians and media have some kind of God-given right to make false accusations and speak untruths? If indeed democracy is based on choice, then these politicians have appeared as a result of choices the people have made.

How is it that these slurs seem to imply that 50.11 percent of the electorate are as a group somehow second to the other voters, who made up 49.89 percent of the valid votes? Or that this group voted for the president against their better judgment, having been sucked in by supposed campaign chicanery? Is this an affront to the discernment of the electorate, or a dismissal of their intelligence?

Democratic rule of law is based on the premise of distrust, and it's a democratic norm to scrutinize government actions. This is why the law provides channels through which such disputes born of mistrust can be dealt with.

It is therefore essential that we allow legal mechanisms to continue unhindered, at least until their fundamental procedures and structures have proven to be ineffective. We should maintain a certain level of good faith and trust, as we need these fundamental game rules in place if we are not to languish in an endless struggle.

Such basic procedures and mechanisms may not fully measure up to one's expectations. However, unless one completely refutes their legitimacy and necessity, the election argument should be resolved through legally recognized procedures, and a solution found therein. One side should not mislead the public into taking part in senseless assaults, as when the election commission made an announcement that it was required by law to make. Neither should one side call a press conference and claim "the law is unfair" just as the courts are making a judgment following due process, or mislead the public by comparing the simultaneous holding of the referendum and the election with illegal "tie-in sales" (搭售). These demands are not too much to ask of politicians in a modern society governed by the rule of law.

How could these politicians claim that some election commission members who had pressed for more caution in defining what was to constitute an invalid vote were pro-green?

And if they do finally get the justice they say is being denied them, how are these politicians to modify their claims that the law is unfair? That a lot of people were disappointed by the election result is one thing; to doubt the ability of legal procedures to resolve a controversy is another. If we don't believe that problems can be resolved by the law, are we to resort to lie detectors across the nation?

The problem we face is not simply the endless crisis of mistrust aroused by politicians and media workers, who like everyone else have differing beliefs and support different camps.

The procedures of democratic rule of law cannot heal every rift, and likewise the words of politicians cannot rebuild every trust.

Perhaps the only remedy open to us is for the public to critically appraise political accusations and unfounded reports to identify dubious or invalid points, and to respond in our capacities as voters and consumers.

We should also ask ourselves whether such distrustful and disorderly words and deeds are the main source of the divisions among us. Otherwise, we will always be a rabble, not a people.

Liu Ching-yi is an associate professor in the Graduate Institute of Industrial Economics at National Central University.

TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
This story has been viewed 2212 times.