Avoiding Sham Democracy

After posting two articles on democracy, Prof. Hwan Lin called my attention to another article on the nature of democracy. I read it and I really appreciate Prof. Lin's timely introduction to such an illuminating discussion by Mr. Howell. ~~ BIg Eagle ~~ Here is "避開偽裝的民主":

Avoiding sham democracy

By DAVID HOWELL

LONDON -- There is all the difference in the world between democracy and constitutional democracy.

Democracy alone, in the sense of votes, elections, ballot boxes and political parties, is an unanchored force. It can lead to stable societies, but it can just as easily lead in a quite different direction, pushing the ship of state onto the rocks of one-party rule, the cult of personality and all the paraphernalia of tyranny. In the 20th century, this occurred again and again, most notably in the open and "democratic" election of Adolf Hitler in Germany, with hideous consequences.

The point is worth making again today when there is so much talk of bringing democracy to the Middle East. Elections alone may sound democratic, but what if they simply lead to extreme Islamic majorities that then suppress all opposition, as is all too likely in some of them, such as Iraq, and has long since occurred in places like Iran?

All the speeches about democracy then simply end up by creating more autocracies and dictatorships.

This is why the "anchor" of a proper constitution is such a vital component of the democratic process. It holds society in place. In the words of the Oxford English Dictionary it is "the system or body of fundamental principles according to which a nation or state is governed."

But here's the snag. Constitutions are not to be had ready-made and off the shelf, to be rolled out and placed alongside elected governments as "proof" that a country is now "democratic."

Constitutions are the most delicate and complex constructions, requiring that they be patiently built up, layer upon layer, like the finest lacquer or the most exquisite enamel. History is the store of common experience from which constitution-makers draw. Every nation has a different past and therefore different needs to provide it with an enduring and workable constitutional framework.

This is why constitutional reformers everywhere need to proceed with the greatest caution and respect for what has gone before. The eager reformer who sweeps in and wants to tear great holes in the constitutional fabric does so at his or her peril. Once the constitutional anchor is damaged, what is left may look like democracy but could drift away into either anarchy or worse.
Besides, constitutions are not just about government in the formal or official sense, and their promotion and improvement should never be left to politicians alone.

A working constitution must embrace all the centers of power in society -- not just the body politic but the judiciary, the press, the labor organizations, corporate business, professional bodies and many others. All these must be bound by constitutional restraints and must by their own behavior act as the pillars that a sound constitution always needs.

This applies just as much to those who are trying to develop quite a youngish constitution, such as in Japan at this moment (although from an old growth), as to those in Britain who are seeking to alter a very old constitution that has come down to the present generation through hundreds of years of development -- from precedent to precedent, always adapting but always resting on a solid foundation of beliefs and customs.

Modern Japan, born again in 1945 out of the ashes of disaster, and determined, to its credit, never again to wage aggressive war, now has to decide afresh how to defend itself in the new conditions of global terrorism.

In Britain, the same challenges of global terrorism are placing stresses on the ancient liberties and rights that make up the country's unwritten but deeply entrenched constitutional system and settlement. In the name of national security, the British government is currently trying to bring in laws that would involve detention of citizens without trial or charges -- in effect overturning one of the most treasured of English liberties enshrined in the 13th-century Magna Carta -- that no free man shall be deprived of his freedom and held in prison, without clear charges and due trial -- the so-called habeas corpus principle. << Note: Big Eagle likes that best!!>>

To question something so fundamental to the law and the constitution is, for any government, like putting its hand on a high-voltage cable. But for the present British government, this comes at a time when it has already acquired the reputation of a constitutional meddler. Laws to change ancient parliamentary procedures, laws to curb the powers of the Upper House (House of Lords), laws to reform the judiciary and set up a new supreme court, laws to curb free speech where it is deemed to promote religious hatred -- all are in the pipeline.

And coming up on the horizon is a massive new law to bolt on to the British Constitution, a new and superior legal order and a new pattern of rights in the form of the Constitution for the whole European Union.

Unsurprisingly, all these proposals for altering the British Constitution have met with enormous resistance and run into endless obstacles. This should not be a matter for regret. All constitutions need amendment through the ages and they must be flexible enough to bear this. But such changes must have the approval of the widest possible section of the community and be carried through with the greatest possible respect for society's customs, habits and sensitivities.

Attempts to take hurried shortcuts, or to push through changes on a partisan basis by sheer weight of elected majority, may sound democratic, but they are not. True democracy is not just a simple matter of collecting the most votes. Without being rooted in sound and universally accepted constitutional principles it is meaningless, at best a sham, at worst another destroyer of liberties.

This is the lesson that aspiring democrats in the Middle East will have to learn. But it is also a lesson of which the present generation of political leaders in the more mature democracies, such as Britain and the United States, need constantly reminding. At the moment it seems in danger of slipping their minds. <<Note by Big Eagle: People on Taiwan, please pay attention to this.>>


David Howell is a former British Cabinet minister and former chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. He is now a member of the House of Lords.

The Japan Times: March 10, 2005

Democracy Updates -2

Article 2. Published on 2005/3/05. ~~~ BigEagle ~~~

公民新聞學－從扁宋會談媒體新角色

林火旺

扁宋會以政黨和解為名，卻引發藍綠陣營激進派的強烈反彈，尤其獨派大老對陳總統的批判，彷彿深仇大恨。柯林頓總統接受東森新聞獨家專訪時表示，他和老布希總統雖然意見不同，個人卻很肯定他，從來沒有質疑他對國家的愛，兩相對照，國人對待政敵的態度，似乎停留在封建時代。

19世紀英國哲學家彌勒(John Stuart Mill)堅持主張言論和表達的自由，理由是：人都可能犯錯，尤其在自己最確定的事情上，最需要提醒自己是會犯錯的。彌勒認為，在一個真正自由的社會，不同聲音或主張是常態，只有採取強迫或武力，才可能統一思想。多元也是自由社會特有的資產，因為敵對的主張可以提醒和挑戰我們自己之主張的合理性，用暴力壓制他人的質疑，即使是真理，久而久之也會變成死教條。柯林頓在東森的訪談中說：「我們的政治對手，就是我們的朋友，他們顯露出我們的缺點，也顯示出我們的錯誤」，就是這個道理。

如果多元是自由社會的特色，則和解、容忍、妥協才是多元社會不同主張者和平共存的前提。因此不論扁宋各自的盤算是什麼，從對立走向和解、從劍拔弩張變成理性對談都是值得肯定的。

扁宋會引發這麼強烈的反彈，原因在於國人習慣於一元的思考模式，認定自己的主張是惟一的真理，為了真理而羞辱他人、排除異己似乎是尊貴的行為。然而人不是上帝，體認到自己可能犯錯、允許別人反對的空間，才是民主公民應有的風範。如果多元是自由社會的常態和資產，如何使目前存在我們社會的多元對立轉變成多元包容？媒體其實在這方面可以扮演關鍵性的角色。

根據經驗研究顯示，人們在同質性的團體中進行討論會產生團體極化(group polarization)的現象，也就是說一個團體成員在經過討論之後，所形成的觀點往往比討論前更為極端，因為人類具有非常顯著的順從傾向，大部分人（包括許多反叛者）都強烈受到他人想法和行為的影響。因此在沒有受到異議阻止下，基於順從和避免社會壓力的心理特性，一個立場溫和的女性主義同情者，參與女性團體內部討論時，其立場會轉為強硬；一個政黨傾向本來中立的人，參與偏民進黨團體的討論，立場也會趨於「綠化」。因此學者認為，避免極化的最佳方式是：確保公民在異質的情境中進行討論，讓不同的聲音和主張都能在討論中呈現。

面對台灣社會政治極化現象，媒體如果要發揮正面的貢獻，也許需要進行媒體轉型。華盛頓郵報專欄作家布洛德(David Broder)和新聞學者羅森(Jay Rosen)，在1990年代倡導公民或公共新聞學(civic or public journalism)，基本想法是：媒體在政治上所扮演的角色不應該像過去一樣，只站在政治社群的背後報導其病態，而應該變成積極份子，刺激公民參與，導引公民投入公共辯論，使媒體的報導能代表真正人民的聲音。也就是說媒體作為一種工具，應該用來改變和改善政治辯論。所以鼓勵理性討論和傾聽他人聲音，以培養深思熟慮的閱聽人，應該是媒體在多元社會的職責，因此參加談話性節目的來賓如果只會硬拗，媒體應該將他列為拒絕往來戶。

公民新聞學也強調媒體應該改變以往冷眼旁觀、甚至製造對立衝突、唯恐天下不亂的啫血性格，應主動挖掘一般人民關心的問題，透過這些議題質問政治人物的作為，而不是任由政治人物創造議題；也可以透過公民會議促成公民與公民之間、公民和政治人物之間認真對話、理性溝通。誠如柯林頓總統所言，社會的通病是聽不到別人的聲音，扁宋會後媒體報導的焦點不應該擺在獨派大老的反彈，因為堅持自己意識型態優先的人畢竟是少數，而應該深入探討「和解」在多元社會的意義；促成對立雙方平和、耐心聽取彼此的想法；甚至設定如何務實促進兩岸和平的公共議題，引發一般公民廣泛討論，讓大多數人的心聲佔據媒體版面，體現人民當家作主的民主真諦。

過去的媒體以政治人物或名人為核心，所以淪為這些人做秀的工具，公民新聞學所追求的新媒體則是以人民為核心，關心人民的利益和幸福，所以是和人民在一起、站在人民這一邊，是人民的媒體。如果能朝這個方向發展，媒體一定可以從此擺脫「社會亂源」的污名。

Democracy Updates - 1 of 2

Recently I found many articles that are talking about "the state of democracy" in Taiwan. Among the many, I picked the following two which I think deserve our attention. The authors of these two articles are university professors. Both articles were published on "民眾日報". Here is the first article which was published on 2005/1/31. ~~~ BigEagle ~~~


真假民主

瞿海源

　　在民眾日報寫這個專欄也有一年八個月了。最近就把這個專欄的文章連同在近一兩年在其他媒體發表的專欄集結成冊，目前已由圓神出版問世。以下改寫這本名為「真假民主」的新書的長序，說明這一兩年撰寫評論的心緒，主要是對民主政治僵局的分析與批判，請讀者指教。

　　在去年八月間的一篇專欄中，我指出「從調查顯示，確實有一股強大而在日益增強的民主逆流，阻礙著台灣民主政治的繼續發展」。經過進一步的分析，又發現民眾支持民主的不夠多，反對民主的還不少，而猶疑矛盾者也相當多。

　　「各個政黨在政治競逐中，大都欠缺推動民主化的企圖和動力。國親兩黨仍然不改威權政黨的特性，黨內幾無民主可言。同時，依舊企圖利用反民主的勢力奪回政權，支持者中有六成都肯定解嚴前的威權政治就是很清楚明白的證據。民進黨在中央執政後，尤其是在總統兼黨主席之後，推動民主化的力量似乎也小了許多，民進黨的民主面貌也變得模糊不清。令人憂心的是，我們正面對著一股阻礙民主政治發展的逆流」。

　　在二○○四年總統大選當天中時刊出拙著「冷靜理性地來完成大選」，這是時報早先約好的每約稿，文中呼籲候選人、政黨領導階層以及選務人員及民眾冷靜理性地完成總統大選，這些忠告的話，最後等於是白說了。在陳水扁當選連任總統後，澄社決定全面檢討民進黨四年執政的成績，我個人覺得民進黨以「相信台灣、堅持改革」為總統大選主軸，但是民進黨政府在過去四年改革幾乎繳了白卷，五月三十日我在民眾日報就寫了「堅持改革不應該只是口號--民進黨執政四年改革無成的檢討」，這一篇專欄後來就成為澄社在七月間發表的兩萬多字聲明的前言部分。

　　台灣民主發展至今，大體上確實遭遇到一些困難，甚至是阻難。一方面，國民黨系一直未能因應民主化潮流有效地蛻化為民主政黨，而泛藍上下基本上並沒有真正的民主精神和素養。相對的，在另一方面，泛綠兩黨雖有比較民主的形式，但在實質民主內涵上還是很不夠。尤其是在本土化優先的前提下，不但實際施政效能還未能有效提升，對於重大改革也多缺乏積極推動的動力。

　　自從經由選舉而失去政權以來，國親新三黨在民主化進程上，似乎是不進反退，更挾其在國會席次的優勢，全力阻擋國家民主化的進行。許多國民黨執政末期好不容易規劃的重大制度改革方案，如司法改革的幾個相關法案等，卻都遭到國民黨的杯葛而無法通過。連戰甚至還說假如國民黨還在執政，國民年金法案早就實施了。擺明就是我執政就通過施行，民進黨或阿扁執政，就是同一個一模一樣的法案，國民黨贏偏偏不讓通過。

　　個人連續參與監督大法官提名聯盟、司改三法推動聯盟和替代死刑推動聯盟，還擔任後面兩個聯盟的召集人，曾帶領聯盟成員代表去向政府高層及政黨領袖陳情和遊說，深深感到在野的國親就是一味反對到底，甚至連戰主席親口在最後電視上和接見聯盟代表時所答應或承諾的，都沒有實現。民進黨領導階層，特別是陳水扁總統，對民間提出的要求，都表示尊重和肯定，但又常常指稱在野黨杯葛而無法推展。無論怎麼說，結果就是改革無成。至少，讓我覺得連戰的承諾往往是飄飄渺渺，幾乎沒有成真的可能，而民進黨政府推動改革也多有氣無力。

　　於是，這一兩年來，在寫評論時，深深覺得我們正遭逢民主發展的逆流。在這本評論集文章選輯成形時，就跟圓神的編輯說就以「民主的逆流」做為書名。但是經過與編輯商議，要擬一個更好的書名。覺得目前民主遭逢逆流，其根本在於缺乏真正的民主。許多人，尤其是政治領導人士都沒有真正的民主體認和民主的素養，但口口聲聲都說自己民主，對方不民主，甚至民間也有拿民主聯盟名銜來魚目混珠的，其實多是假民主。在專欄中，往往在批判假民主，提倡真民主。於是最後就決定以「真假民主」做為這本評論集的書名。

Taiwan Presbyterian Church 2/21/05 Declaration

台灣基督長老教會公義與和平宣言


為關心台灣目前處境及將來的發展，本教會秉持「根植於本地，認同所有的住民，通過愛與受苦，而成為盼望的記號。」之信仰告白，特發表此宣言。

一‧台灣主權獨立是政黨合作應堅持的基礎。追求和平是人類共同的目標，但和平應建立在公義的基礎之上；政黨間之協商及合作，必須以台灣國家主權獨立為前提。我們呼籲所有的政黨，認同疼惜台灣這塊我們安身立命的土地。台灣就是我們的鄉土、我們的國家。所有的政黨應忠於台灣，為全民的尊嚴與福祉盡心盡力。國家主權是促進經濟發展及民生需要的保護傘，失去主權，一切建設必隨之崩解。所以政府必須堅持維護台灣國家主權獨立，正名、制憲、加入聯合國、以及照顧弱勢者、實現社會正義的政治理想及目標。

二‧追求公義和平乃是國際社會共同的責任。台灣長期被孤立於國際社會之外，是違背普世公義和平的原則。台灣國與中國是兩個互不隸屬的主權獨立國家。世界各國應支持台灣國加入國際組織、參與國際事務，讓台灣能貢獻於世界的公義和平及人類的安全與幸福。美國與其他崇尚民主自由的國家，在國際事務上需要中國的合作時，我們呼籲各國政府與人民，必須同時尊重及維護台灣國家的獨立主權。

三‧確立台灣與中國的新關係。台灣與中國應秉持平等互惠、和平共存的原則，互相承認與尊重。台灣非中國領土。台灣的民主自由正遭受中國的文攻武嚇，中國以超過七百枚且不斷增加的飛彈瞄準台灣，並將制定「反分裂國家法」，破壞兩國關係，嚴重危害亞太地區的和平與安全。為此，我國應制定「台灣國與中國關係法」，以確立兩國新關係，保障台灣的主權與人民的安全，並促進亞太地區的和諧與發展。我們呼籲台灣國人同胞堅定信心、勇往直前，因為聖經說：「我豈沒有吩咐你嗎？你當剛強壯膽！不要懼怕，也不要驚惶；因為你無論往哪裏去，耶和華─你的上帝必與你同在。」~約書亞記1章9節

「慈愛和誠實彼此相遇；公義和平安彼此相親。誠實從地而生；公義從天而現。」 ~聖經詩篇85篇10-11節

台灣基督長老教會總會　　　　

總會議長 陳道雄
總幹 事 羅榮光
主後 2005年 2月21日