World is Stuck with "Him"

World is Stuck with "Him"
Bevin Chu
May 10, 2006

China Post Editorial
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
World is stuck with 'him'


Chen Shui-bian, "Commander in Chief "

China Post: The China Post has received many letters to the editor, urging President Chen Shui-bian to resign as soon as possible for the good of his family, his party and his country because his poor performance has done enough damage to them all already. Two more years of suffering are simply too much. Chen's traditional supporters are also deserting him; his approval rating has sunk to the lower teens. But to the dismay of everybody, an early departure of Chen is unlikely. According to the Constitution, the president can be impeached or recalled, but the thresholds are too high to even be contemplated.

Comment: The China Post notes that "According to the Constitution, the president can be impeached or recalled, but the thresholds are too high to even be contemplated." The China Post is correct.

The constitution the China Post is referring to however, is not the Republic of China Constitution according to Original Intent and Strict Construction. The constitution the China Post is referring to is Lee Teng-hui's "amended" constitution, a legal counterpart to Viktor Frankenstein's reanimated monster. Lee created this affront to constitutionalism and the rule of law during his imperial presidency, for two purposes.

First, to ensure that Lee himself could do whatever he damn well pleased and never fear impeachment or recall.

Second, to transform the Republic of China Constitution into an abomination that inspires only disgust, providing a convenient pretext for the eventual authoring of of a "Republic of Taiwan Constitution" to take its place.

China Post: To impeach the president, the motion must be initiated by at least half, and endorsed by two-thirds of the total members of the Legislature and then, presented to the 15-member Council of Grand Justices for adjudication.

To recall the president, it requires initiation by one-fourth and endorsement by two-thirds of the total members of the Legislature and finally, approval by 50 percent of the valid ballots cast by at least 50 percent of eligible voters in a national referendum.

Comment: Why? Why such ridiculously high thresholds for the impeachment and recall of a president? One need not be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall to realize that legal thresholds as absurdly high as these make whoever is elected president utterly unimpeachable and unrecallable.

During Lee Teng-hui's reign the Taiwan independence nomenklatura blocked an eminently sensible New Party amendment requiring run-off elections and an absolute majority to elect a president, but rammed through a string of amendments that included this outrageous supermajority threshold for the impeachment or recall of a president.

Democratic universalists assure the world that "Democracies, in contrast to other political systems, respect the will of the people."

Really? Then why did "Mr. Democracy" Lee Teng-hui make it harder for the people to rid themselves of him than to elect him?

Shouldn't it be as easy, if not easier for the people to rid themselves of an elected official, than to put him or her in office in the first place?

Chen Shui-bian was elected president by a 39% plurality in 2000 through a direct vote. If a 39% plurality was considered enough to install him in office, why isn't a simple majority, also through a direct vote, enough to "uninstall" him from the same office? Wouldn't that be more "democratic?" Wouldn't that be real "democracy?" Why would "champions of democracy" oppose such an arrangement? Why have "champions of democracy" opposed such an arrangement?

What possible explanation can there be for such a baffling and illogical arrangement, except that aspiring dictators want to make it as easy as possible for themselves to get into office, but as difficult as possible for betrayed and disillusioned voters to remove them from office once they are in?

Why would any sitting president "amend," i.e., pervert, sabotage, undermine, the constitution of the nation he is presiding over in such a manner?

Why else, except to transform a perfectly good constitutional republic into a democracy and oneself into democracy's worst by-product, an elective dictator? Why else, except to transform the Republic of China, a perfectly good constitutional republic, into a "Democratic Republic of Taiwan?"

Has anyone forgotten this was the handiwork of the Taiwan independence Quisling whom Newsweek magazine anointed "Mr. Democracy?"

China Post: That leaves the last resort -- demonstrating people power to force the president to resign, as happened in the Philippines and Thailand. Taiwan's people are ready to do that, but they dread to see Chen's deputy as their next leader.

Comment: This, needless to say, is precisely what "champions of democracy," i.e., aspiring elective dictators, count on. They know perfectly well that People Power takes an eternity to kick in and take effect. People have jobs to go to and lives to live. They don't have either the time or energy to take to the streets in protest every time elected officials engage in power grabs.

When they do eventually take to the streets, it is invariably as a last, desperate resort. It is invariably because by then they are "mad as hell, and not going to take it any more!"

Long before that however, democratically chosen elective dictators will have already gotten everything they wanted from democracy, the worst political system ever tried.

People who still believe in democracy at this late date need to disabuse themselves of the fairy tale notion that "Democracy is a political system of the people, by the people, and for the people." Democracy is no such thing. Democracy is a political system of an elective dictatorship, by an elective dictatorship, and for an elective dictatorship.

It is time for intellectuals, at least those worthy of the name, to give serious thought to adopting a radically new political system to replace democracy. It is time for cutting edge intellectuals to consider the adoption of market anarchism, the best political system ever tried.

Until then, intellectuals in politically mature nations of the world should insist on the second best political system every tried, a constitutional republic.