Council's fight puts portrait in limelight

A fight broke out at the Taipei City Council on April 13, when some Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors' discontent over and boycott of Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) administrative report triggered a protest by some blue-camp councilors. As a result, New Party Councilor Lee Ching-yuan (李慶元) pulled down a portrait of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) that was hanging at the back of the council chamber and was chased and beaten by some DPP councilors. This case re-minds us of the pan-green camp's damaging portraits of the two presidents Chiang in the past. Things change with the passing of time. The changed positions of the two camps make us sigh.

The hanging of a presidential portrait undoubtedly holds an implication of power. In an authoritarian regime, leaders' portraits are a tool to win over or awe their friends, and to tame and monitor their enemies. However, in a democratic society, the hanging of a presidential portrait symbolizes the legal rule authorized by a democratic mechanism.

It actually symbolizes, and gives a human face to, authority. For both systems, leaders' portraits have two social regulatory functions: Glorification and oppression. This is the so-called "portrait politics," under which a presidential portrait is in fact a re-creation of honor, status and position, hinting that the president's social and moral role and authority is supreme.

The key to Lee's case is not the portrait. Rather, it's the compulsory hanging of a presidential portrait at all government agencies as prescribed by law. This is also where the core of portrait politics lies. Through their portraits, leaders' character, spirit, appearance and authority can be directly branded on the minds of both their subordinates and their people, transforming that into loyalty to the leaders. That's why leaders at all times and in all countries are always so obsessed with printing, circulating and hanging their own portraits.

The power of a national leader in a democratic system comes through the authorization of a majority of his or her people. Logically, the legitimacy of hanging his or her portrait is greater than that of a dictator. His or her portrait also represents a country and its government in an abstract way and is a symbol of political power.

Therefore, the tearing up of the portrait of a directly elected president and that of a dictator have very different meanings. The former is a denial of a majority decision and people's power. The latter is a challenge to dictatorship and even a symbol of democratic revolution. The two should not be mentioned in the same breath.

The blue-camp supporters' refusal to accept the results of the presidential election is understandable. They are not giving up democracy now and believe that Chen used tricks that abused democracy in order to win the election, and therefore refuse to admit his presidential status.

This shows that they agree with democracy and do not intend to destroy it.

Nevertheless, until a judicial recount and the official investigation prove that Chen was truly elected through dirty tricks, we must accept the fact that he was legally elected. This is not only a rational attitude but also the manner of a civilized person. In other words, since the judicial system has not yet come up with its conclusion, Chen is still the president of Taiwan -- no matter how much you hate him.

On the premise of this democratic issue, hanging Chen's portraits is legal and legitimate. Lee's removal of the portrait was indeed tedious and ignorant, and was also an example of negative, anti-democratic behavior.

Pu Ta-chung is the chief editorial writer of the Apple Daily.

TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG