THE PRESIDENTIAL election in Taiwan last month aroused the fervour of the entire population on the island. Moreover, it grabbed the attention of the Beijing leadership and the international community as well as that of the Chinese across the world.
This is the second time that the Taiwanese have chosen their president by direct voting. In the first election years ago, Lee Teng-hui was presented as the candidate strongly endorsed by the late President Chiang Ching-kuo.
By contrast, in the recent poll, three strong teams of candidates contended for the presidency and people could hardly tell the results until they were announced.
Almost every Taiwanese was involved, showing that the era of democracy had arrived. Throughout the campaigning, the people turned into the “boss” who wielded the almighty power of selecting the leader of the island.
It has been a drastic change from autocracy to democracy. Autocracy allows one person or one political party to decide everything, whereas democracy requires that all people make decisions together.
Herein, of course, lies a fundamental difference in the way decisions are made. The power to make decisions has remained an absolute one, though the autocrat could exercise the power every day whereas the whole population do so only once in four years.
In the old days of autocracy, around the monarch there was always a throng of toady courtiers. The dictator enjoyed all sorts of praise and flattery but hated frank criticism and admonition.
When decisions are made by all people, particularly when they are exercising their right to vote, there are also candidates who try to please the voters with sweet talks.
For example, they promise to boost economy and raise income for the population； to carry out political reforms and put an end to money politics； or to hand the ruling-party-linked businesses over to the custody of trust companies and delink all political parties from business interests.
In 1992, when campaigning in the presidential election in the United States, candidate Bill Clinton promised to directly link China's human rights records with Washington's decision on the Most Favoured Nation status for Beijing. That was nice to hear for the American voters.
After entering White House, however, President Clinton did nothing to link the one with the other. Instead, he just delinked them.
Under the system of monarchy, greedy position-hunters would present the ruler with gifts, including treasures collected across the country, precious works of art, and pretty women.
Under the system of democracy, especially during the electoral campaigning, candidates would present the voters with all kinds of gifts, including promises of tax cuts and welfare perks.
Lien Chan, the ruling party's presidential candidate in Taiwan, promised to extend the 9-year free education to 12 years and offered special tax rebates to allow the people to pay less to the government's coffers.
Should such vote-seeking promises be honoured, the financial revenue would be slashed and expenditures puffed up. For example, the special tax rebates alone would cut the tax revenue by NT$7.4 billion （S$414.4 million）。
Local administrations also tried to profit from the situation. They asked the central government for greater budget. Some counties, for instance, asked for a top-up of NT$1 billion （S$56.1 million） and got it, because the ruling party was keen to garner votes.
Even an enlightened emperor in feudal China knew better than to overtax his people . Emperor Tai-zong of the Tang Dynasty warned of the consequences of fleecing the population to satisfy the ruler's greed. “It is like cutting flesh off your own leg and feeding on it － your hunger is allayed but you die soon after,” he said, according to historical records.
Now, with democracy, the voters ask for tax cuts and welfare perks from the government. This is also like feeding on one's own flesh. If the elected politicians honoured all the promises they have made, the people's desires would be satisfied but the state would perish.
So, democracy forces politicians to tell lies, because the would-be decision makers like lies. He who refuses to lie won't get elected.
Democracy is far from a perfect political system. It is merely a system that, so far in human history, has had less drawbacks.
（The author, editor of The Nineties, a defunct Hong Kong-based magazine, is senior political commentator. The Chinese original was published in Ming Pao Monthly, March 2000. Translated by Allen Zhuang）
臺灣民主政治非完美
三月,臺灣總統(tǒng)大選,不僅臺灣人民全情投入,而且也使全球華人矚目,北京*與國際社會,也關(guān)心大選的結(jié)果。
這是臺灣有史以來第二次全民投票選總統(tǒng)了。而且與第一次不一樣,這次沒有蔣經(jīng)國指定的繼承人李登輝強(qiáng)勢參選,而是三強(qiáng)鼎立,競爭激烈,究竟鹿死誰手,難以逆料。因此,在臺灣,真的是幾乎人人投入,體現(xiàn)了以民為主的時(shí)代。人民在選舉期間,就是“頭家”,握有決定國家領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人的莫大的權(quán)力。
從專權(quán)政治到民主政治,確實(shí)有很大的改變。專權(quán)政治是由一人、一黨做主,民主政治則是由全民做主。
一人做主與全民做主,當(dāng)然有本質(zhì)上的區(qū)別。只不過,“做主”
則是一樣的。盡管一人做主所行使的做主權(quán)力天天都存在,而全民做主則只是四年行使一次權(quán)力,但所行使的權(quán)力也是絕對的。
一人做主的專權(quán)政治時(shí)代,*者身邊總有許多阿諛逢迎的佞臣,*者愛聽各種贊美他的好話,不要聽批評他的諫言。
全民做主的時(shí)代,在全民行使投票權(quán)的時(shí)候,也有各候選人講些全民愛聽的好話,比如說要搞好經(jīng)濟(jì),增加全民的收入；說要進(jìn)行政治改革,結(jié)束黑金政治；說要將黨營事業(yè)付諸信托,政黨不再經(jīng)營企業(yè)。
8年前美國總統(tǒng)大選,克林頓說要將中國人權(quán)狀況與美國是否給中國最惠國待遇直接掛鉤,這是美國老百姓愛聽的話,但克林頓上臺后,卻不但不“直接掛鉤”,而且干脆脫鉤。
專權(quán)政治時(shí)代,各地要買官的人紛紛向*者獻(xiàn)上禮品,包括各地的珍寶、字畫、美女。
全民做主的時(shí)代,在全民要行使投票權(quán)的時(shí)候,候選人也向“做主”的人民送上各種禮品,包括承諾會減稅,會增加福利。臺灣這次大選還由國民黨提出在立法院通過給地方上的民意代表加薪,使他們直接得到金錢,以便鞏固國民黨在地方上的票源。
連戰(zhàn)提出將九年免費(fèi)教育增加至12年,并主張“提高薪資特別扣除額”（即免稅額）的減稅措施。這些支票若予兌現(xiàn),將大幅度減少財(cái)政收入、增加財(cái)政開支,光是提高免稅額一項(xiàng),估計(jì)就會導(dǎo)致政府稅收減少74億元（臺幣）。
此外,各地方縣市,也趁選舉的機(jī)會,向中央要求增加地方預(yù)算撥款,有的縣要求增加的金額達(dá)十億元,執(zhí)政黨為了選票,也一一允準(zhǔn)。
專權(quán)政治的時(shí)代,開明君主曾告誡不要“損百姓”,“若損百姓以奉其身,猶割脛以啖腹,腹飽而身斃”（見《貞觀政要》）。意思是,倘若君主苛斂,使老百姓疲弊痛苦,這就跟割下自己小腿的肉來充肌沒有兩樣。肚子飽了,卻難免一死。
以民為主的時(shí)代,老百姓又要政府減稅,又要政府加福利,無疑是“割脛啖腹”,若當(dāng)選的政客將他所開的支票一一兌現(xiàn),則百姓腹飽而國亡。因此,民主時(shí)代是逼政客說謊,因做主的百姓愛聽謊言,不說謊就不能當(dāng)選。
民主政治絕不是完美的制度,它只是至今為止,人類社會中弊端較少的制度而已。