|
Curing democracy of
its maladies
By Yen Chueh-an ÃC³Ö¦w
The past few weeks saw a white T-shirt vigil protesting the death of army
corporal Hung Chung-chiu (¬x¥ò¥C) followed by another demonstration in which
protesters vowed to ¡§tear down the government.¡¨ These two social movements were
very different in their nature, but both served to demonstrate that the
legitimacy of the government of President Ma Ying-jeou (°¨^¤E) and Premier Jiang
Yi-huah (¦¿©y¾ì) has been weakened. These events have also precipitated a debate on
civil disobedience.
The general assumption is that civil disobedience movements are founded on five
basic principles. That is, that they are concerned with the public interest;
that they give rise to public debate and scrutiny, seeking a change in the law
or in public policy; that they happen only after all alternatives have been
exhausted; that they proceed in a peaceful manner; and that the proponents are
willing to accept the legal repercussions of their actions.
It may not always be that straightforward: All of these five principles entail
various qualifications, and not everyone is in agreement regarding the details.
Moreover, they all need to be understood and modified according to the actual
political, social and historic context in which they occur.
In terms of Taiwan¡¦s recent experience, the white T-shirt vigil organized in
Hung¡¦s memory was not strictly about civil disobedience, although it did carry a
strong message that things could not continue in the way that they had. More
specifically, the protesters said a collective ¡§no¡¨ to the way the authorities
are governing the country, and to the parts of the system relevant to their
grievances, such as the existence of military courts.
To these things, they expressed their dissatisfaction, and their refusal to
continue to accept the system. However, the way they carried out the
demonstration was conspicuously one of ¡§obedience.¡¨ That is, they broke no laws,
and they carried out their protest in an orderly manner. Insisting on saying no,
and yet refusing to resort to disobedience, they still managed to secure their
goal of seeing military trials abolished in the nation.
There is no way the ¡§tear down the government¡¨ movement could have adopted this
model, as government officials at the very highest level had blatantly reneged
on promises made in black and white, and people found themselves in a direct
confrontation with police and the earth-movers brought in to demolish their
homes. That they did not take up arms themselves was already adequately
temperate and civilized, and naturally the subsequent protests had little
alternative but to adopt this ¡§civil disobedience,¡¨ supposedly in violation of
the law.
How can actions taken in violation of the law have moral legitimacy? Good
intentions were never an adequate defense, so what makes people involved in
civil disobedience an exception? The experience in Taiwan is informative. By
¡§tearing down the government¡¨ the protesters were seeking to symbolically
dismantle a ¡§corrupt government¡¨ to defend the fundamental principles of a
¡§legitimate¡¨ government. They were attempting to openly explain what type of
government qualifies as a government deserving of respect, and what kind of
principles of governance need to be upheld for a government to assert that it
governs by common authority, as opposed to by force. This is civil disobedience
at its most profound.
Further, Taiwan is facing the kind of tribulation often faced by countries in
their transformation into democracies: that of a democratically elected
government itself threatening the democratic system. It might therefore be worth
considering, in addition to the five requirements of civil disobedience, whether
there is a need to develop a kind of ¡§democratic resistance.¡¨
This democratic resistance would be different in that its goal would be the
protection of the principles of democratic constitutional government ¡X human
rights, the rule of law and social justice ¡X and does not necessarily need to
wait until all alternatives are exhausted; neither do the proponents need to
accept prosecution for their actions. Democratic resistance is an advanced form
of civil disobedience, seeking to cure the democracy of its malady, just as
civil disobedience is the perfect context for democratic resistance.
What kinds of democratic maladies are sufficient to legitimize this type of
comparatively radical democratic resistance? First, when the state authorities
violate the principles of constitutional government on a relatively frequent
basis. Second, when the various branches of government have found themselves
impotent in mitigating this situation in an effective manner. Third, when the
opposition parties are either too weak to do anything, or even complicit.
Fourth, when the government is seriously devoid of any degree of sincerity, or
seeks to govern through falsehoods and lies. And fifth, when the government
chooses to crack down on dissent, and even uses criminal elements to deal with
the public. Using these to look at the state of Taiwan¡¦s democracy of late, we
can see that these maladies are, indeed, becoming increasingly serious.
Some might say that these maladies, as indicators, have been tailor-made to
represent the situation in which Taiwan now finds itself. However, the more
pertinent point is how it is that Taiwan is becoming increasingly like 1930s
Germany.
From civil disobedience to democratic resistance, the public has finally
realized that from its inception in 2008, when it started using the police force
to protect itself, the government has not stopped at tearing down and destroying
all of the basic principles of democratic, constitutional government, and so
tearing down the government through democratic resistance is the way to protect
justice of the people, by the people and for the people.
The great Roman historian Tacitus once mocked the Britons for thinking
themselves civilized by imitating the ways and lifestyles of Romans, whereas in
doing so they were actually demonstrating their servility. Resistance in the
face of unfairness and injustice is the noblest expression of civilization. All
the various paraphernalia and artistic legacy of the resistance process, such as
the posters, the paintings, the plays, the songs, and the works of poetry and
prose, shall become the historic artifacts of Taiwan¡¦s democratic civilization,
for all to see in posterity.
Yen Chueh-an is a professor at National Taiwan University¡¦s College of Law
and a supervisor of Taiwan Democracy Watch.
Translated by Paul Cooper
|
