Print

Mail

wiki links

Resolutions that pile up and create a total mess

Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairman Yu Shyi-kun has said that the party's "Normal Country Resolution" is meant to restrain DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), who says that there is "a constitutional one China" and that this must be respected. There are quite a few people who feel that Hsieh should be controlled, not because he is pro-unification, but because they doubt his resolve to work for the nation's independence.

Because the road to independence is full of obstacles and cannot be accomplished immediately, we must pragmatically promote it in accordance with consistent objectives. But it is difficult to to strike a balance between these "consistent objectives" and "pragmatic promotion," and that is at the center in the dispute over the Normal Country Resolution.

Regarding political party systems, the US soft "broker party" system means there are no platforms, but only the policy platforms created during presidential elections. The mission-based, rigid social democratic parties in western Europe, however, promote distributive justice while protecting productivity and democracy. Giving considerations to long-term convictions, pragmatic policies and promotional strategies causes political problems.

When the DPP was established, it roughly followed the example of European parties with both a basic platform and an action platform. In 1999, then-presidential candidate Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Yu, then the DPP's secretary-general, proposed amending the "Taiwan Independence Clause" in the party's basic platform. In the end, they struck a compromise not to amend the party platform and instead established the "Resolution on Taiwan's Future."

The political importance of the resolution was kept ambiguous, but it was basically placed somewhere between an action and a campaign platform.

In 2000, Chen made the "four noes" pledge in his first inauguration address, which was lambasted by DPP legislators. In order to stay in power, Chen proposed amending the party charter, allowing him to serve as party chairman.

Hsieh said at the time that the Taiwan Independence Clause had been replaced based on principle that newer legislation surpasses older legislation. This move accommodated Chen but resulted in a confusion in the party's policy structure. In addition to my opposition to the proposal, I also withdrew from the DPP National Congress, but the resolution still passed.

Without doubt, the DPP's concession then is key to the recent dispute over the "Normal Country Resolution." If the amended resolution isn't passed at the party's National Congress while the Taiwan Independence Clause has become an inactive old regulation, the party will have lost its ultimate values.

On the other hand, if the congress passes the resolution, it will give Hsieh a core policy to observe for his electoral platform and future administration to bypass the party's internal policy hierarchy.

Additionally, the confusion of this system means that the resolution will have to fulfill too many functions on different levels. With the uneven quality of the resolution, matching a mishmash of different regulations will become the resolution's main characteristic.

If the DPP doesn't clarify the distinction between the strategical arrangement of the party platform -- ultimate goals, mid-term goals and short-term promotion, there will be more disputes in the future.

Not only will the "Normal Country Resolution" be source of these disputes, but I'm afraid that every major election will generate a new resolution. In the long run, a mass of resolutions will pile up and the party's values and structure will become a total mess.

Lin Cho-shui is a former DPP legislator.

Translated by Ted Yang
This story has been viewed 1026 times.