An Essay, wherein some recent Political Comments by Mr. Ip Iam Chong are Examined, Endorsed in part, and in part Overthrown.
Mr. Ip Iam Chong has, in response to another commentator, written lately on this Forum two Essays, dated Sept. 23 and Oct. 1, available in his own Column; expressing thereby his view, as well of the recent political mobilization in Taiwan, as of the way in which such mobilization has been received and interpreted in Hong Kong; two Essays, the main part of which he then turned into a compact form (being hereby appended at the end) and published in Mingpao today, Oct. 5. My present object is to examine the ideas Mr. Ip conveyed by his Essay, some of which I find praise-worthy, yet others, quite objectionable. In brief, it is praise-worthy, to urge people in Hong Kong to attempt, at the least, to understand Taiwan politics in its proper context, and to judge it not by an alien standard, but by one sensitive to the historical experience of Taiwan; it is yet objectionable, to denounce (forgetful now of the praise-worthy principle just mentioned) the Hong Kong public for refusing to participate in a larger democratic imagination, as if, in Mr. Ip's judgment, it were a sin not to stand at the forefront of a global march to democracy. I write openly against this cult of democracy, a cult sufficiently seductive to plant itself as a new religion in the mind of many commentators, of whom Mr. Ip is patently one.
(a) The Praise
In the first two paragraphs of his Essay, Mr. Ip dismissed the many democratic theories put forth by the political conservatives in Hong Kong, theories which invariably questioned, if not the quality of Taiwanese democracy, then the speed of her democratization. These theories are meant to achieve two objects: 1. to interpret the recent political mobilization in Taiwan, and, by so interpreting, 2. to deflect the course of debate on democracy in Hong Kong. The two objects are intertwined, but the grounds on which they may respectively be criticized, are not identical. The first object, when pursued in the face of one sympathetic to the past of Taiwan, her very bloody past, must implicate the pursuer MORALLY.
So was Mr. Ip right to urge, that a Taiwanese who had endured long political oppression, must find it repugnant that some Hong Kong commentator should disgrace his demands and subsequent actions as too radical. It is, and we must concede, not entirely groundless, that rapid democratization (with frequent political designs on agitating ethnic antagonism) be not the best course of political development Taiwan could have taken; the proposition, that rapid democratization can be harmful, depending on social situations, is illustrated by Latin American experiences. And yet, the present question, as Mr. Ip would concur, is not whether rapid democratization had been the best course for Taiwan, but that persons having been subject to long political oppression must be morally justified to demand such a course.
To judge Taiwanese democratization not to be the best course for her, can stand but as a detached analysis; to judge the participants in that process to be lacking in foresight, or to be too radical, shall amount to demanding that their own experiences should carry absolutely no weight on their political decisions. The original position from which Taiwan embarked on democratization was so very different from that from which Hong Kong did on the same project, that any evaluation of the two, or comparison thereof, could from moral implications never be free, but must be undertaken under full consideration of the differences. That commentators in Hong Kong have, in their pursuit of object 1, ignnored such MORAL implications, causing thereby to those sympathetic to Taiwan not a small disgust, like that expressed by Mr. Ip, is certainly unfortunate; a lesson which commentators in Hong Kong, perhaps as well in Taiwan, should learn.
(b) The Objection
From the third paragraph onwards of his Essay, however, Mr. Ip decided to tread a different terrain, and launched a considerable discourse on democratic imagination. In concreto:
"所謂全球化的年代，民主的想像由一個民族國家，落入更複雜遼闊的地緣關係，自覺民主不足，有少許自省能力的社會總會問﹕什麼是民主﹖願意思考的香港人，只要看看身邊，發現已有幾個自稱民主國家，她們的好與壞，直接影響我們如何論說政治與民主，以至行動﹔「民主」作為強大的理念，固然早已大力擴散，但在這個新時代裏，我們的「民主」參考點，已不再僅是歐美國家，民主地域想像更顯得多元及複雜，當年查良鏞辯說美國不是直選，支持「雙查方案」，今天香港保守派透過詮釋台灣政治，來支持自己的政治議程。"
Mr. Ip expressed a great interest in enlarging the space of the said imagination, because, in his view, democracy as a powerful notion has been powerfully spreading itself all over the globe. That commentators in Hong Kong, nay, the Hong Kong public entire, has been very much unreceptive to this great current, or in his words:
"我不知道香港人能理解多少這些民主運動討論，大概我們只聽得懂游錫的「拼經濟拼建設」的呼籲，香港從來難以展開更廣泛的民主討論，我們的民主論述，只困在政治鳥籠裏亂轉，糾纏在路線圖與時間表，"
is, for Mr. Ip, very lamentable. Lamentable so it is, that
"我不擔心會有許多人相信這種民主奇談 [referring to the first quoted passage above]，但這些詮釋繼續流行下去，只會令我們無法看到別人，也無法看到自己，民主的想像貧乏，目光如豆。"
To examine the doctrines put forth in these few bits, it is instructive to retain one question throughout: When a commentator so sees everything, that the more democracy, or the more democratic imagination, the better, and writes of it in total silence on what good - and also what bad for that matter - this "more" might bring, shall we not venture to call him also "目光如豆"?
The more democratic imagination the better, is for Mr. Ip a foregone conclusion. If the said imagination refers to the imperative that one reads of Taiwan politics sympathetically and contextually, I hold absolutely no objection against it, but indeed shall praise it all the more. But it is patent that Mr. Ip had something different in mind. In speaking of democracy as a powerful notion, he had elevated this very thing to a supreme height, and anything conducive thereto, even with very unpalatable consequences, will for him be a good thing. I cannot hold such an opinion of democracy.
Mr. Ip started his third paragraph by invoking the great trend of our times. That something is in vogue, is spreading itself powerfully, does not of itself imply that the thing must needs be a good thing. Mr. Ip, I presume, would not be prepard to say, that because Anglo-saxon Neo-liberalism had been spreading itself quite powerfully, we must join the party and enlarge our neo-liberal imagination. But if so, then what Mr. Ip had apparently adduced as a ground for enlarging our democratic imagination, viz, that democracy is in vogue, must turn out to be no ground at all.
Secondly, contrary to his urge to be sensitive to the Taiwanese context, Mr. Ip did not deign to apply the same to himself when he interpreted the situation in Hong Kong: So, while long years of political oppression is one reason for accepting morally the rapid democratization in Taiwan, the absence of a similar experience in Hong Kong, and consequent of which a general reluctance to sustain the kind of political mobilization (long a hallmark of Taiwan politics), does not enter Mr. Ip's political calculus at all. He denounced commentators in Hong Kong for trivializing the Taiwanese experience, as well for exploiting their reading thereof for their own political projects; patently, that Mr. Ip himself was also trivializing the Hong Kong experience, and was exploiting his reading thereof for his own political project, is something, alas, to be denounced under the same light.
To be sympathetic to the rapid democratization in Taiwan (and the course political activists there have chosen of late), does not warrant the rash conclusion, which Mr. Ip seemed eagar to draw, that it would very much to Hong Kong's benefit that a similar course of political development be marketed to the public here. If it be wrong, in his opinion, to market the idea of gradualism to the Taiwanese, without paying heed to what they have experienced, it is equally wrong to market radicalism to the Hong Kong public, without contemplating what it has experienced. In both cases, and moral implications aside, it is imperative that one take democracy not as a cult, but as something which can bring good as well as evil.
The saying, that the more democracy the better, is not a self-evident truth. The Third Republic, as well as its institutional re-incarnation in the Fourth, was not saved by "more democracy," nor by more mobilization, but by a more effective and resolute executive. I think this much Mr. Ip would agree. He would also agree, I presume, that, absent the appropriate institutional arrangement, the democratically elected, and sentimentally re-elected, President of the ROC, could with his democratic backing be allowed to pursue a course of policy in complete detriment to the economy of Taiwan, causing, inter alia, a general despair among the middle class there. If whatever ill the Taiwanese system had brought to the island should be accounted for simply by "lack of democracy," then democracy must be definitionally identified with good, rendering the proposition, democracy is good, a tautology, of no empirical content whatsoever.
But it is precisely towards such a goal, that Mr. Ip's Essay seemed to lead us. Impatient with whatever there be said against democracy, he wrote:
"台灣倒扁運動掀起的爭議，可能比運動本身的成效更有意義，如果我們肯花心思去讀一下聽一下相關的爭議，便會對香港保守派的說法一笑置之，不值一駁。"
In the beginning of his Essay was a lament, that the Hong Kong public has not been willing to take the Taiwanese experience as an instructive mirror; but the obverse, that the Taiwanese have not been receptive to Hong Kong's political gradualism, was nowhere given a thought. Might it be the case, that the experience of Hong Kong could be instructive to Taiwan? I concede that to ask such a question is already an act of moral complacency. I do not pretend, especially with in mind what I praised Mr. Ip of, that Taiwan need to learn from Hong Kong. Taiwan has her very peculiar past and present, from which Hong Kong's own is simply different. But if I should like to believe, that it is equally complacent to hold Taiwan up as a model, under the enlightenment of which, presumably, the conservative arguments in Hong Kong should deserve nothing more than a smile.
Political commentators, in advocating democracy, should always bear in mind, that it is a form of governance, which can bring good as well as evil. Some Taiwanese might hold very fast to the notion that having a democratic system out-weighs any evil they have endured in the past six years. It is an attitude, not an imperative. It is doubtful, whether very many people in Taiwan would so resolutely prefer the said experience to a Hong Kong which has, fortunately or not, not embarked upon the same course of political transformation as Taiwan has.
(c) The Cult
To see everything only, or even just chiefly, in the light of a form of governance; to long for a kind of radicalism (which, I repeat, might very well be justified in another context) without concerning oneself with whether the public under one's critical eye is really so discontent with its present condition; to despair at the apparent unreceptivity of the said public to that radicalism: such, is to create a cult, a cult which would (fortunately) not be re-examined, nor the promoter thereof interrogated, even if it be very unclear, say, after the achievement of universal suffrage of the Chief Executive in Hong Kong, whether political and social and even private life have for the ordinary citizen in any distinctive way upon the present improved.
This thought does certainly not impede the quest for universal suffrage; many political demands and changes are made and effected not, and especially not in the long run, because they would necessarily benefit the ordinary citizen in any distinctive way; but because of a belief of the time, a vision, or simply a passion of a decisive group. It is nevertheless advisable to detect the features of the cult, in the theoretic books written in its aegis, in the way certain discourses are launched, and in the arguments and turns of speech which fill the newspapers of an epoch. In our epoch, democracy has become such a cult; and Mr. Ip's Essay is a very good instantiation thereof.
葉蔭聰﹕港人看得懂台灣民主嗎﹖
看 電視機裏的台灣倒扁紅兵團，有人想起03年反23條的七一遊行，但香港的政治保守派想到的，是一堆「港式民主理論」。這些理論在近日媒體中經常出現，首先是民主素質論，即民主有分好壞，有分高低，台灣的民主是素質低的，我們要素質高的好的﹔為什麼台灣的民主素質好不起來﹖因為民主太急進，於是，民主循序漸進論出場，民主不能操之過急，像台灣那樣急速(近日的泰國政變也會被人這麼理解)，並不是好事，足見循序漸進方為上策，務實政治方為本，亦有人順道乘機推銷「均衡參與」的好處。
我不大了解施明德會否也覺得，所謂台灣「民主質素」有問題，至於「急進」的說法，他大概會當場氣死，難道他坐了十幾年牢還是太短﹖國民黨的黨禁報禁及「動員勘亂時期」還不夠長﹖「均衡參與」論，大概只有香港人才會明白。
所謂全球化的年代，民主的想像由一個民族國家，落入更複雜遼闊的地緣關係，自覺民主不足，有少許自省能力的社會總會問﹕什麼是民主﹖願意思考的香港人，只要看看身邊，發現已有幾個自稱民主國家，她們的好與壞，直接影響我們如何論說政治與民主，以至行動﹔「民主」作為強大的理念，固然早已大力擴散，但在這個新時代裏，我們的「民主」參考點，已不再僅是歐美國家，民主地域想像更顯得多元及複雜，當年查良鏞辯說美國不是直選，支持「雙查方案」，今天香港保守派透過詮釋台灣政治，來支持自己的政治議程。
置身井底 目光如豆
我不擔心會有許多人相信這種民主奇談，但這些詮釋繼續流行下去，只會令我們無法看到別人，也無法看到自己，民主的想像貧乏，目光如豆。
台灣倒扁運動掀起的爭議，可能比運動本身的成效更有意義，如果我們肯花心思去讀一下聽一下相關的爭議，便會對香港保守派的說法一笑置之，不值一駁。
在紅藍綠之外，不少反對陳水扁的人並不熱中倒扁運動，包括著名作家龍應台在內的一些人認為，在民主政治中，是否該用「人民革命」式的群眾運動來「包圍總統府」或「癱瘓交通」，以達到倒扁的結果。這引起一些左翼學者(例如陳宜中)反駁，他們指出群眾運動不會革掉民主的命，反倒是深化民主﹔遠還沒有罷工，便有人討論公民抗命是什麼，政治罷工是否可行及應該。
當許多人激烈讚賞倒扁的人民力量、中產階級的醒覺，民進黨立委林濁水則提出，要提防倒扁的價值一元主義，以及領袖的群眾美學，導致法西斯的興起。支持倒扁者當然不同意，他們指出，運動參與者超越藍綠政黨政治，是新自主公民運動(如學者趙剛與卡維波)，準備下一波更多元的人民抗爭與改革﹔但倒扁口號的單一，卻招致人質疑何來多元。
我不知道香港人能理解多少這些民主運動討論，大概我們只聽得懂游錫的「拼經濟拼建設」的呼籲，香港從來難以展開更廣泛的民主討論，我們的民主論述，只困在政治鳥籠裏亂轉，糾纏在路線圖與時間表，近日泛民主派無奈推舉梁家傑跟曾蔭權陪跑，竟也成民主的一大步，民主挑戰，竟然要看選委會的人是否願意賜100票給梁大狀﹔這種討論水平，是誰之錯﹖錯不在我們的政治人物太笨，只在於我們的政治發展。
近日亞洲地區政治風起雲湧，我們卻風平浪靜，港人身處其中，形同置身井底。
Hong Kong Mingpao, Oct. 5, 2006.