Print

Mail

wiki links

What's a 'new cultural discourse'?

Recently, topics related to the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) "new cultural discourse" have caused much controversy. At a time when the post-election political situation is not completely stable and the year-end legislative elections are approaching, such topics seem to be quite sensitive and have been excessively linked to the legislative election.

Disregarding the motives of those who support or oppose this new discourse, I believe the most important question is: Does the DPP need a new discourse? Does Taiwan's society expect the ruling party to propose a new discourse? I can boldly claim here: it does have the need, and this society surely has new expectations of the party, which won the presidential election by only a narrow margin.

In fact, the goal of proposing a new discourse is to examine the relationship between the current political line and the new environment on the one hand, and to consolidate a new consensus through a more thorough process on the other hand. This can unite those inside the group, and allows those outside to gain a better understanding of its stance. A new discourse does not necessarily have to abandon the traditional line. Rather, it can absorb factors of change and new elements on the existing basis, and the range is wide. It can also be an all-round exploration in addition to ethnic issues or cross-strait relations.

After all, the external and internal environments have changed over the past few years. After undergoing the political changes from 2000, when it first came to power, to the second phase of its rule now, the DPP has already accumulated a great deal of collective experience and wisdom. It's surely necessary for it to come up with a general discourse to conclude the past experience. It's inappropriate for each member to make his or her own interpretation on the line and stance of the party.

The DPP's major debate on its China policy in March 1998 successfully integrated all opinions that confronted one another at that time. Later, after losing the Taipei mayoral election in the same year, the party adjusted its line by forming a discourse task force on its future direction, and passed the "Resolution on Tai-wan's Future" in May 1999. The 1999 resolution -- which states that Taiwan is already an independent sovereign state whose name is the Republic of China (ROC), and that any change to this status quo must be determined by the people of Taiwan through a public referendum -- has then become the key foundation of its policy debates.

I was already working at the DPP's policy department at that time, but was unable to participate in decision-making since I was just a junior researcher. Nevertheless, I benefit from party elders' great efforts whenever I talk about the party's China policy.

Moreover, at the time of the 2000 presidential election, the DPP compiled policy guidelines and a campaign white paper, which later provided theoretical guidance for the party's ruling direction. For example, a complete basis for the government's policy of "active opening; effective management" can be found in these documents. Looking at the past, I have to give credit to party elders' great input, which was helpful to the party's transformation. From this perspective, although a party does not need learned discourses aimed at showing off eruditeness, it should not ignore the pragmatic value of good doctrines.

Of course, such discussion should be thorough and sophisticated, instead of proposing mere slogans. It should go with many scholars' complete and objective analyses of the current situation in all areas, and follow politicians' judgements and choices according to their political sensitivity and wisdom as well.

The DPP has already entered the second phase of its rule. As the ruling party, it should demonstrate magnificent resolve and style when discussing and making policies. It should also have a complete process of examination, argumentation, evaluation, execution and monitoring for every "political product" it wants to sell. Do not forget the DPP did benefit from the discourses during its transformation before.

Let us also look at the experience on the other side of the Taiwan Strait. Over the past few years, China has also proposed several new discourses, including the "Three Represents" theory, the "new three principles" of the fundamental "one China" policy, the discourse on the "cross-strait links," the "three issues open to discussion" between the two sides, "great-nation diplomacy," the "peaceful rise of China" and other doctrines. One can always learn from others' experiences. It seems to me that discourses are indeed necessary for the development of political affairs.

Perhaps the DPP can take the making of a new discourse as a serious and positive task. If the party is afraid of being criticized as artificial, it may well keep a low profile and process this in its closed-door meetings. As for the results of the discussion, they do not necessarily have to be publicized in a hurry before the legislative election. By having such an exploration, at least it will let voters understand before the year-end election that the DPP is ruling the nation seriously. This will give the Taiwanese people certain hopes of democracy and progress.

Both the words "democratic" and "progressive" in the DPP's name are attractive. From this perspective, it seems unnecessary for some members to criticize even before a discussion truly takes place. To be honest, there are too many commentators and too few connoisseurs in Taiwan's society. Too much frustrating criticism will only reduce our chance of having new experiments and inventions. This will damage the traditional cultural style of the DPP.

Yan Jiann-fa is an associate professor in the department of business administration at Ching Yun University, and the former director of the DPP's China Affairs Department.

TRANSLATED BY EDDY
This story has been viewed 2213 times.