Print

Mail

wiki links

Dialogue needed to calm politics

`Our statement is a call for the public to move from the "antagonistic democracy" that seems to define domestic politics to a constructive exchange of ideas and opinions.'

The statement by pan-green academics calling for President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) to step down has been well received in many circles. Chen's response and that of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), on the other hand, has been disappointing. What is truly important, however, is that our statement has spurred much needed public dialogue on the issues of politics and morality, constitutionalism versus accountability and institutional reform.

Although our statement has met with wide acclaim, many people have also frowned on it, with some saying it was too focused on the issue of morality at the expense of institutional concerns. However, such critics neglect the fact that morality is an integral component of our institutions.

That is, the institutional restraints that dictate to society what a person is allowed and not allowed to do, are more than just written laws or regulations; such restraints are a reflection of our collective sense of right and wrong, of morality and ethics.

Political leaders, particularly those in the highest echelons of power, must explain their actions to the people -- to merely say that their actions fall within the bounds of legality is unacceptable. Their explanations must satisfy the ethical standards of society.

Morality is not some lofty, esoteric notion; it should be a concrete concept that pervades our daily political actions. Collective notions of fairness, justice, integrity and responsibility are the criteria we use to evaluate our leaders and hold them to certain expectations. In the absence of a basic level of moral discipline, democratic governance easily unravels.

That Chen should be held accountable and take it upon himself to step down is the opinion of a segment of society; it is not an opinion forced on the majority by the few. And how much responsibility should Chen take for the unethical behavior of his family and aides? Should he be made to quit the presidency on account of their actions?

The answers to these questions will inevitably vary across different segments of society, which is why, in releasing the statement, we have encouraged the public to begin discussing such issues. Public dialogue on these matters needs to take place for us all to better understand the diversity of ethics.

Contradictions between various standards and ethical assumptions need to be exposed and scrutinized by the public. Those who don't believe that Chen must step down to take responsibility for his family's and confidante's transgressions, must step forward and explain the ethical standard behind their logic.

Hopefully, we can better define the substance of accountability in politics through this kind of public dialogue, and stake out common ground. A discussion based merely on legal formalism, however, will not be conducive to addressing issues of morality and ethics.

As mentioned in the statement, the scandals surrounding Chen and their ethical ramifications present an opportunity for us to more closely examine certain pressing issues and elevate the quality of democracy.

However, in trying to ascertain how responsible Chen is for the scandals, we've become stuck in the quagmire of partisan politics. Amid clashes between the pan-blue and pan-green camps, any attempt to show how shortcomings in our legal institutions may have contributed to abuses of power and corruption -- and how reform should be implemented -- has incited accusations that we were trying to vindicate Chen for his role in recent scandals. This, in turn, has suppressed reasonable efforts to set in motion institutional reforms.

Our statement is a call for the public to move from the "antagonistic democracy" that seems to define domestic politics to a constructive exchange of ideas and opinions.

A public dialogue needs to be fostered in which people with different values, convictions and stances can express their views and listen to those of others. In doing so, they can identify the core problems that our democracy faces and search for solutions.

We know well that political antagonism has a long history in Taiwan, and we need to face it squarely. The critical analysis that emerges from public dialogue creates opportunities for us to move beyond combative modes of leadership and interacting with peers.

Creating space for constructive dialogue is crucial to this end. A strong and liberal society where collective opinions are forged from open scrutiny and dialogue is a society that can best keep its leaders and political parties in check, and advance democratic reform.

When political leaders and parties lose sight of the principles of democracy, the only hope for democratic reform is to initiate vibrant and rational dialogue throughout society. These are not empty words, but something that must be put into practice.

Lin Kuo-ming is an associate professor of sociology at National Taiwan University.
This story has been viewed 1141 times.