Last week's `siege' a betrayal of democracy

When the campaign aimed at ousting President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) reached a climax on Friday by "laying siege" to the Presidential Office, Taiwan entered an era of betrayal.

The most obvious examples can be found among the anti-Chen actions on Ketagalan Boulevard, such as veteran actor Chin Ti's (金帝) impersonation of the late dictator Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) to boost the protesters' morale. He ended his performance by shouting "Long live the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT]."

The crowd in red shouted along, forgetting that former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Shih Ming-teh (施明德), the campaign leader and their hero, was jailed by Chiang for 25 years. Perhaps Shih felt saddened by the display but was unable to say so, surrounded as he was by deep-blue supporters.

Without Chiang's crackdown on the democracy movement, Shih would never have been called "Taiwan's Nelson Mandela." But without the support of Chiang's followers, there would not be an anti-Chen demonstration today. In the face of this historical irony, it is hard to say if Shih has betrayed himself or if his pan-blue supporters have betrayed Chiang.

The former is probably more likely. When campaign spokeswoman Wang Lie-ping (王麗萍) called out "Republic of Taiwan" during a speech, she was booed by the crowd and had to issue a public apology, which showed the anti-independence sentiment of those participating in the sit-in.

By contrast, no one criticized Chin for praising the KMT. Nor was he given a dressing down in the way Shih lectured Liao Lin Li-ling (廖林麗玲), the Taiwan Solidarity Union's (TSU) candidate in the upcoming Taipei City councilor elections, when she suggested that the nation should apply for UN membership under the name "Taiwan" instead of the Republic of China.

I wonder what "Taiwan" -- a place that Shih sacrificed so much for -- means to the people dressed in red? Will he now compromise his past ideals just to maintain his leadership?

What is being betrayed here is not only the "Republic of Taiwan," but also the spirit of the nation's democratic history. If Shih really was one of the most important individuals in this historical discourse, his position is now at risk of being seriously distorted.

The campaign to depose Chen represents a certain set of values. But if these values are tied to Chiang's legacy, that would negate the claim to transcend partisan politics and the unification-independence debate. The protesters would inadvertently become the political mainstream.

Some academics are so naive. They see the "love" and non-violence demonstrated on Ketagalan Boulevard as a beautiful song that will purify people's hearts and develop into a new creed. They also believe that even if Chen does not resign, the seeds of democracy have been firmly planted. However, the confrontation between the pan-blue and pan-green camps would only lead to rising hatred and violence, and possibly even to a national strike that would feed social unrest.

The Kaohsiung Incident in 1979 remains a milestone in Taiwan's democratic development. Its influence has actually increased over time. Answering the question of whether the campaign's "siege"of the Presidential Office on Friday was a glorious replay of the Kaohsiung Incident or a betrayal of that incident is critical for evaluating the nation's democratization, and Shih's role in that movement.

Hsu Yung-ming is an assistant research fellow in the Sun Yat-sen Institute for Social Sciences and Philosophy at Academia Sinica.

Translated by Eddy Chang