DPP in crisis after Chen's betrayal

President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) signed an accord with People's First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) after their meeting last week. The accord contains a 10-point consensus which encompasses the promise to "respect" the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution and a reiteration of the "five noes" commitment, among others. Later, Chen went on to declare that the campaign to change the title of the country and adopt a new constitution is being "self-delusional."

Those moves triggered outrage from people in the nativized camp. Many heavyweight elders of the pro-independence camp who have always supported the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government voiced serious disapproval. Presidential advisor Koo Kwang-ming (辜寬敏) declared on Tuesday that he would resign from his post, and that he would not change his mind. Koo solemnly indicated that during the past five years, as an adviser to the president, he had on many occasions informed President Chen that the "five noes" seriously jeopardized the country's survival and development. However, during this past meeting with Soong, President Chen didn't give a second thought to reiterating them.

"One minute President Chen wants to create a new constitution and the next minute he wants to amend the constitution," Koo said. "So the impression the president gives is shaky and unstable ... there is really nothing I can do about him."

Facing the backlash from pro-nativization camps, their supporters and pro-independence elders, the DPP is trying to persuade them not to abandon the party. They have also openly declared that the ideals of the party have not changed. Chen even said that the idea of seeking cooperation with the PFP had come from former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), and then cited the example that as president, Lee himself had invited the conservative general Hau Pei-tsun (郝柏村) to head the cabinet.

He tried to use Lee as an excuse for the compromises he made during the meeting with Soong. Based on the reaction of the DPP government, Chen and Premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) apparently still think that the backlash of the nativized camps is merely a temper tantrum that will soon pass. They are still blinded by the myth that "no matter how dissatisfied the nativized camps may be, they will still have no choice but to support the DPP in elections."

But it's absurd and ridiculous for Chen to compare interim measures taken by Lee in order to dismantle an authoritarian regime and the moves taken by Chen after a change in the governing party and democratic reforms. This further shows that Chen and Hsieh are completely ignorant of the crisis they face in terms of the legitimacy of their government and its ideological path.

The meeting between Chen and Soong caused resentment not because of their agreement for the two parties to cooperate and reconcile. Rather, it's because the ten-point consensus they made departed from the long-term ideals pursued by the DPP and the supporters of nativization. In other words, it has denied the spirit and reality of Taiwan's long march toward becoming a "normal country."

As for cross-party cooperation, it's inevitable, regardless of whether the DPP government has a legislative majority. Even if the pan-green camp had won a majority of the seats at the Legislative Yuan, it would still have to facilitate social harmony and stability through cross-party cooperation. Therefore, the cooperation between political parties is something that the people are happy to see.

The pro-nativization camps would not be resentful just because Chen and Soong made peace. The problem is that in order to accomplish the cooperation, he actually turned his back on the long-term ideals of his party regarding Taiwan's sovereignty. He allowed the dying "Greater China" concept to make a comeback in Taiwan, dressed up in a "Republic of China" suit.

It is no secret that throughout Taiwan's political evolution -- from the dissident movement to the political party DPP, and from authoritarianism to democracy -- the most important goal, as articulated by the Taiwan Presbyterian Church, is to establish "a new and independent country."

"New" means that this country stands apart from the foreign regimes established by Holland, Spain, China and Japan. "Independent" means that the sovereignty of this country belongs to the inhabitants of Taiwan, rather than any other country.

The accord signed by Chen and Soong treats recognition of the "ROC" as the common denominator in Taiwanese society, and reiterates "respect for the ROC Constitution," and "respect for the existing system." This position is at odds with the direction of the trend of the popular will.

It has in reality nullified the progress made in decades of political reform and nativization efforts. The Chen-Soong meeting showed that the DPP government is willing to betray Taiwan's sovereignty and the party's founding ideals. This has created the most serious ideological crisis within the party since its founding.

We must also point out that President Chen's remarks that the campaign to change the country's title and adopt a new constitution are "self-delusional" -- a drastic change of position for him -- have sparked a crisis of legitimacy for his presidency. President Chen was twice elected president, the first time due to the rivalry between Lien Chan (連戰) and Soong and their split of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).

It cannot be denied that the second time around Chen was re-elected on the platform of "one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait," name rectification, and adoption of a new constitution. Because a majority of voters support these ideals, Chen won.

In other words, the legitimacy of Chen's presidency is based on a nativized consciousness and a commitment to name rectification and a new constitution. The voters elected him based on the goal of turning Taiwan into a "normal country." Chen's promises and commitments -- while not formally in writing -- are a pact between Chen and the voters and are at the very heart of his legitimacy as president.

Now Chen and Hsieh have repeatedly indicated that name rectification and the adoption of a new constitution cannot be implemented and are "self-delusional" goals. Saying that is no different from openly shredding Chen's agreement with the voters and denying the legitimacy of Chen's presidency and power. While the DPP is still the Taiwan's lawful governing party, one cannot help but doubt its morals and ethics.

Facing such serious crises, President Chen has not tried to reverse his mistake, leave behind the traps set by the pro-unification camp and come back to the nativized camp. Instead, he has tried to duck responsibility for the accord with Soong by blaming former president Lee. But looking back at history, everyone knows that during Lee's presidency, Taiwan was at a major crossroads between authoritarianism and democracy.

Authoritarian rule was the biggest roadblock to Taiwan's development. After the change in the governing party in 2000, Taiwan's democratic system was fully in place. The country has now reached the crossroads between unification and independence. When former president Lee appointed Hau to head the cabinet, the purpose was to remove him from the military and thereby help avoid military interference in the government, to replace Lee Huan (李煥) with Hau and divide the conservative, pro-China camp. The move was intended to gradually wrest command of the government, military and the KMT from that camp's control. It was Lee's political maneuver to dismantle the authoritarian regime and usher Taiwan toward democracy, rather than a compromise or concession. Nor was it a sell-out of ideals. No comparison can be made with Chen's recent move.

Chen was re-elected with the mandate of the majority in Taiwan. The trend of reflecting the mainstream popular will couldn't be clearer. True, in last year's legislative election, the pan-green camp failed to win a majority of the seats in the Legislative Yuan, complicating the campaigns for name rectification and the adoption of a new constitution. But that failure was not a rejection by the voters of name rectification and the adoption of a new constitution. There is no need for the DPP to lose faith -- and even less need to sell out ideals and betray the voters' trust in the name of cross-party cooperation.

The 10-point consensus reached between Chen and Soong has created a serious crisis for the DPP. Most Taiwanese still have high expectations for Chen. All now depends on whether Chen has the moral courage and political wisdom to find his way back and reunite with those who truly love Taiwan.