Michael Anti on Why Chen Won't Go

ESWN brings us a long essay by blogger and journalist Michael Anti. Some of you may recall that Anti briefly rose to world prominence earlier this year when Microsoft axed his blog for political reasons. I've omitted the introduction...

In June when the PFP and KMT brought up the recall proposal, Chen Shui-bian and the DPP used a blue-versus-green approach by equating "recall vs. corruption" to the smear of "outside political power versus local political power" and made the DPP and the pan-green people defend A-Bian, albeit reluctantly. But Shi Ming-teh is someone who gave up half his life for the DPP and it would be very difficult to smear him as "blue." Besides, this current campaign refuses the participation of any political party or social group. Therefore, the DPP can only resort to some low-down methods to smear Shi Ming-teh, such as his ex-wife coming out to accuse him of womanizing, or Yu Shyi-kun speaking about how political morality is just feudal thinking, or Wang Ben-hu saying that the NT$100 million was really money-laundering for the PFP/KMT, or Wang Shih-Cheng saying that he "wished Shi Ming-teh had been executed by Chiang Ching-kuo twenty six years ago." But these trash talking cannot lessen the immense impact on A-Bian and the DPP, for the various public opinion polls have put the support levels for Chen Shui-bian and the DPP at between 11% to 18%.

One thing that is fascinating here is Anti's refusal to engage with reality. He says: But Shi Ming-teh is someone who gave up half his life for the DPP and it would be very difficult to smear him as "blue." Alas, Shih has been cooperating with the Blues for quite some time. He left the DPP in 1999, according to his own statements on the issue, and did not support Chen for the presidential election in 2000. Since then he has been siding with his old enemies. Anti ignores all this recent history in favor of a hagiography that does not place Shih in any context that is useful for the reader.

Anti goes on to say that the DPP can only smear him with low methods "such as his ex-wife coming out to accuse him of womanizing." I doubt Linda really cares much whether Shih womanized -- the issue is that he did so instead of working. As Linda wrote:

A loner and a night-owl, he could not make office hours, or communicate systematically with his staff. Their dedication was mostly wasted. He was endlessly flattered by reporters and hangers-on, and addicted to women, drink, and cigarettes.

Anti simply mischaracterizes what was actually said. Hardly suprising, given the anti-Chen slant of this piece of writing. Observe also that Anti slants by omission -- there is no discussion of the political motives of Chen's opponents. He goes on:

In any ordinary society, a popular support rate in the teens would force a political leader out. But the sad thing is that even a successful campaign to mobilize public opinion such as Shi Ming-teh's has no chance of forcing A-Bian out. The reasons are either the political character of A-Bian, or the design of the political system in Taiwan, or the internal power structure of the DPP. No matter what, A-Bian will not and he does not have to quit.

Actually, in any ordinary society, popularity levels themselves have no effect on whether a leader will leave. No one consults a poll and then determines whether the President should stay in office. Societies where that is done are called mobocracies and all sensible people shun them. Instead, the President leaves office when his term is up, according to the law, in ordinary societies. Ordinary societies work by rule of law and have stable governments. In an ordinary and democratic society there are procedures and processes that exist to enable the legislative wing to force the chief executive out. Street demonstrations only work in societies that are not "ordinary" -- in societies where rule of law does not prevail, and where the populace has to threaten violence to make change.

First, if A-Bian quits, his entire family and assets will be seriously threatened. A-Bian, his wife, his son-in-law and his trusted aides will go to jail. Even though his successor may give him a personal amnesty, he cannot avert the destruction of his family. The historian Tang Degang insightfully pointed out that the crisis in transfer of power by Chinese rulers is the reason why China was stuck in a historical bind. Therefore, A-Bian must defend his power until 2008 and then the DPP must continue to hold onto power in order that he can save his whole family. Under this threat against existence, how can A-Bian possibly care about political morality or leaving a good name in history? Therefore, no matter how many people show up in the streets, he will not think about quitting.

Note how completely illogical this paragraph is. First, Anti asserts that Chen, his family, and his trusted aides will go to jail if he quits. A glance at things will show that his son-in-law is already headed in that direction and Chen cannot save him. Nor can he save his aide Chen Che-nan, who was indicted today along with 20 others. His wife has already been hauled before the prosecutors once already, and if evidence was good that she had committed a crime, then she would be arrested. In other words, Anti is arguing that Chen Shui-bian is hanging on to save people who cannot be protected, a fact which Chen certainly knows. Anti's arguments are entirely without support, and he hides their weaknesses by keeping them abstract, and refusing to make concrete reference to actual events. In local political "analysis", the preference for abstraction generally signals a failure to produce valid arguments and evidence.

Of course, it is highly unlikely that Chen will do time. This is because, well, as Anti fails to mention, no evidence links Chen to any crimes. That is why the Blues are going for the court of public opinion, where actual evidence is unnecessary. They know that Taiwan journalists -- like Anti, for example -- will not call for evidence, will not maintain strict journalistic standards, and will not ask for cooler heads to prevail. Instead, they will jump on the bandwagon and feed the frenzy. Anti is simply a more sophisticated version of the media lowlives in Taiwan who savagely hound locals when there is news, burst into hospitals and other private spaces, and show neither restraint, knowledge, or taste.

This brings up another issue. There are two very serious and interrelated problems with the anti-Chen forces. First, for the most part, they have no positive vision of their own of the kind of future they want to achieve for the island. And second, the anti-Chen drive is never placed in any larger context of cleaning up Taiwan's politics. Just the other day, PFP Chairman James Soong was convicted of tax evasion and fined $26.5 million, the largest fine ever for a major Taiwan politician. One would imagine that any movement interested in cleaning up Taiwan by getting rid of Chen would also call for the resignation of Soong as PFP leader. The lack of interest in blatant systemic corruption by other politicians and parties on the part of the anti-Chen forces betrays the pro-Blue slant of the anti-Chen campaign. As long as the anti-Chen forces refuse to take positive action to change the System, no one serious about the democratic future of the island can take them seriously as a moral force.

Anti continues:

Next, on account of Lee Teng-hui, the design of the Taiwan political system was changed from the original "cabinet system" to the current "presidential system" in which the President has legal immunity and his position cannot be moved by any judgment. There are only two ways to oust him: the recall or the no-confidence vote. The recall requires two-thirds of the legislature and that is basically impossible. The no-confidence vote takes a long time and it will still be impossible if a 2/3 majority cannot be attained to dismiss the Legislature. Under this system, therefore, A-Bian does not have to worry about any opposition force.

That's right. Which means that the Blues, if they operated under the law, would have to wait until 2007 to grab a majority in the legislature and go for Chen then. This perhaps suggests that the KMT is not confident it can get a majority and bring down Chen by legal procedures.

The real force that can shake A-Bian up is the internal opposition. The DPP continues to support A-Bian now for the following reasons: (1) the party elders are scared that the impetuous Annette Lu will succeed A-Bian and promptly destroy the existing power structure; (2) the power to nominate the candidates for the next Legislature election lies in the hands of A-Bian, so that any critical comments about him will mean the end of one's political career; (3) the most hopeful 2008 DPP presidential candidate is Su Tseng-chang, whose political fate is in the hands of Chen Shui-bian and he can be dismissed as easily as Frank Tse [Frank Hsieh] was last year. These many factors caused the DPP to lose the capacity for self-reflection and be hijacked by A-Bian.

The DPP supports Chen for the same reason many of us do: because in a democracy there are legal procedures and processes for getting rid of the President, and because we await evidence that shows that Chen is corrupt, and that the corruption is something that requires his removal from office. Further, we await the moment the anti-Chen forces show by their commitment to removing other corrupt politicians and those who support corruption from high positions that they are actually interested in changing the island's politics. Without an overall focus on systemic corruption in Taiwan, the anti-Chen campaign remains a partisan political campaign that is bad for the current and future stability of the government. Indeed, last week the American Institute in Taiwan, America's diplomatic body on the island, warned the island that the movement to bring down Chen is damaging to the island's international credibility. DPP members have also argued that Chen is responsible to history.

Which of course is one reason the Blues are pushing the campaign.

Anti also claims that Chen has "hijacked" the DPP. Reality: the DPP has held numerous meetings and discussions about the situation, and has decided to support Chen. This process has been amply reported in the local media, and Anti could avail himself of it any time in order to write a thoughtful and informed presentation. Anti does not tell us how someone whose support, Anti avers, comes only from Deep Greens who constitute less than 20% of the population, could "hijack" the DPP. Probably because the internal politics of the DPP are considerably more complex than "hijacking."

Although Lee Teng-hui is unhappy with A-Bian, he cares most of all about Taiwan independence. In his eyes, Premier Su Tseng-chang who is more rational about the cross-strait policies is even more detestable than the corrupt Chen Shui-bian. Recently, Chen and Lee have been interacting and it seemed entirely possible that Su Tseng-chang will be the sacrificed in return for the support of the deep-green Taiwan-independence forces. Although A-Bian's public support is less than 20%, this group of diehards may be enough to protect him until 2008.

Anti offers no evidence that Su is going to be "sacrificed." All of this is simply vituperative speculation unsupported by evidence. One defining trait of the anti-Chen crowd is their lack of respect for evidence-based arguing.

Even more worrisome than A-Bian staying on is the prospect that to protect his position after he leaves his post in 2008, he may fan the cross-strait conflict into a severe blue-green confrontation in order to guarantee that the DPP will continue to rule. The really worrying thing for good people is that an evil-minded politician would bring all of Taiwan into a crisis for his own personal interests.

"....he may fan the cross-strait conflict into a severe blue-green confrontation in order to guarantee that the DPP will continue to rule." It will be interesting to see how private citizen Chen will "fan" the cross-strait conflict. Mad Chen is a common bogeyman of the pro-China crowd in Taiwan. Again Anti offers neither evidence nor a credible scenario by which Chen could accomplish such things, something Lee Teng-hui has not been able to do although he has far more weight than Chen will when he leaves office.

The really worrying thing for good people is that an evil-minded politician would bring all of Taiwan into a crisis for his own personal interests

Anti ends on the formulaic the-sky-is-falling note. "All of Taiwan into a crisis!" It is not Chen who has caused a "crisis." Corruption in the Presidential Office was exposed and is now under investigation. Indictments have been handed down (so different from the old KMT regime, when the corrupt were protected and given high position). Rule of law, however imperfect, is adhered to. All of Taiwan is not in a crisis -- the crisis is confined to the highly public position of the steps of Presidential Palace in Taipei. The rest of us are going to work as usual, getting our kids ready for school, watching TV or going camping or playing mah-jong. What's going on in Taipei is political theatre which has no concrete effect on the day-to-day lives of the people.

In sum, we look in vain for any recognition in Anti's piece that there are larger issues in the anti-Chen campaign. We look in vain for any recognition that the movement will remain partisan until it shows that it is non-partisan. We look in vain for any recognition of Constitutional democracy as the basis for organizing Taiwan's governance, and for a defense of that key principle. We look in vain for an informed, thoughtful, balanced view that would take us through all the complicated strands of Shih's tragic public demolition and the motives of the anti-Chen forces.

[Taiwan] [Linda Arrigo] [KMT] [James Soong] [Democracy] [DPP] [Kaohsiung Incident] [PFP] [Shih Ming-deh/Shih Ming-te] [Chen Shui-bian]