深綠與淺綠
我在台湾被广为接受的的身份之一是政治评论人。我对于朝野政党都给予相当严峻的批判，尤其在二零零二年之后的几年，我对于当时的执政党民进党的批判非常激烈，无形之中给一些人留下了我属于泛蓝的印象。
首先，这不是事实，我不属于泛蓝，我从来没有在主观上认定自己在台湾属于任何政党；并自我要求尽量客观，尽量以独立知识分子的批判性面对台湾的政治；我的价值标准是自由主义，我的关注焦点是民主进程。换言之，任何符合自由主义的言论和主张，我都能接受，反之，任何反对自由主义的言论和主张，我都反对；任何有利于民主化的言论和作为，我都赞赏，反之，任何伤害民主精神与发展的言论和作为，我都批判。统与独，从来不是我关注的焦点，也更不会是我发表言论的标准。这一点，无论是反感我对于民进党的严厉批判而诬蔑我是统派的深绿还是不喜欢我对于国民党的批判而认定我是独派的深蓝都是误会。我既不是统派，也不是独派，我是自由主义者。
但这并不意味着我对于统独议题没有意见。比如说，我支持公民投票的选择权。如果投票日就是今天，而投票的选项是统一还是独立。作为台湾公民之一，我的那一票就会是投给独立。原因也很简单，今天的统一意味着专制的中国对于台湾的民主可能产生巨大的危害，这一点，我们已经从香港的实例中清楚看到，那么，独立似乎是保卫民主显然更有利的选项。如果投票日是若干年之后，那时的中国已是民主，而公民投票的选项也是统一或者独立，如果投票的正否都不影响台湾的民主自由，人民尊严福祉，则我的那一票应该就会投给统一。原因也很简单，台湾应该与大陆建立更密切的互相信任、互相尊重乃至互相帮助的关系。台湾的现代化经验应该在统一之后对大陆的快速发展有极大的帮助。
也就是说，我对于统独议题首先不作基于情感原因的取舍，只有基于对于每个个人的自由与尊严的捍卫而演伸出来的理性分析判断。情感因素是第二甚至第三个层次，只有在第一个层次的自由、民主原则都不再是问题的情况之下才会作出第二层次的判断。
我有不少主张台独的朋友，我跟他们也常有辩论。他们大多数也都能够接受民主自由作为基本原则，而独立建国作为强烈情感追求的定位。如果逼问他们，追求独立建国的努力与民主自由原则相冲突时会作出什么样的抉择，他们大多会回答民主自由原则为先，但在这样回答的同时，心里已经是痛苦的了，毕竟如果原则与情感相冲突，就意味着自己的情感实际上面临原则的挑战。他们对民进党有情感上的认同，但往往在民进党违背民主自由原则时作出强烈的批判，收回支持的选票，甚至投给对方阵营以作为惩罚。这些人在台湾被归类为浅绿，只要他们在追求台湾独立的同时，恪守着自由民主的原则，我对于他们就会是尊重的，也随时愿意讨论，愿意被说服。
有少数台独分子，独立建国永远是第一位，即使愿意接受民主自由，也是排在第二位的，当独立建国理想与民主自由精神相冲突时，他们会毫不犹豫作出牺牲民主自由的抉择。他们敌我意识清晰而强烈，对于所有不认同他们的独立建国取向的人，他们都视为敌人。无论民进党是否违背民主自由精神，他们都会永远支持，也因此，民进党的非理性反民主作为永远有市场。这些人即使人数不多，也因为激进往往能够掌握舆论方向，在选举之中成为口号主轴，而理性的声音很容易被扣上『卖台』的帽子。这些人也就是所谓的深绿，对于他们来说，是非是简单的，无需辩论，只有能不能被他们说服而成为他们的同伙这样一个问题。
通过比较深绿和浅绿，我们应该看到理性的崇高价值。在台湾，反台独的深蓝其实和深绿一样是偏激的，而反台独的大陆左派愤青动不动就口出谩骂恐吓就更加令人反感了。
开希大哥，我特别想知道的是，民主与自由和人的尊严，生命的尊严是从来站在一边的吗？他们之间会有冲突甚至互相对立的领域吗？不知道您对这个问题有过怎样的思考，愿听其详。
我想问你一句，你是仅仅不支持一国两制，还是支持台湾独立？
无论何时，我们都要以国家领土主权完整为最多准则，民主是必须的，但跟国家主权相比，也是低了一层，当年蒋公有可以南北分治也没有做，因为蒋公类的人才是真正的爱国者。
你认为在台湾独立之后还有给你们投 统一票这一机会吗？ 对你这投票，我很是失望。
扪心自问，这21年来，是不是你一直在说谎， 吾爾開希
First of all, from what you have said I can clearly see that you as a Chinese national and a Chinese patriot has really demonstrated your greatest respect to Taiwan’s democracy and the issues regarding unification and independence. However, from what you have said we can also clearly see how you have misunderstood the reason why Taiwanese people support independence and that was why your article above may sound a bit out of touch.
First of all, you seem to have first divided the forces of supporting Taiwanese independence(TI) to two: emotional factor and basic principles. You identify desire to have an independent state as a desire and democracy preservation is the fundamental pre-requisite. From the way you have put it, since basic principles > emotions, then democracy > desire to have an independent state. I have to say, this is far from accurate to a member of TI movement.
As a long time member of TI movement, I can tell you without any hesitation that they are BOTH basic principles. Just like a man needs water and air to survive, cannot do without either. When we look at the history of mankind, nationhood or national identity has always been the “air” part of the formula, and favorable political structure(i.e. democracy) would be the water. Why? Because without an identity, there is no environment or condition for a political system to exist. There can be a Chinese totalitarianism, an American democracy, or a Venezuelan dictatorship. But the greatest common trait they all share would be “statehood” or “nationality”. You cannot have a true democracy or any political system without a state. Is HK true democracy? No, as you have clearly pointed out, it is a pseudo democratic simulation under Chinese rule. They can look democratic, but they are still Chinese, unequivocally Chinese. Both elements still co-exist.
Furthermore, you said that you forced the question upon TI supporters and ask them to prioritize importance of democracy and statehood. That is absolutely absurd for they are not substitutes of each other. If the people you have asked were truly informed about the issue, they would tell you “statehood” is like air for TI supporters and “democracy” is water. While I can survive without water for days, but I cannot survive without air for nearly as long. I need my share of air FIRST to get me time to find water. Democracy can only be guaranteed IF there is a state that represents and consists of the people to realize it. So, the “deep greens” who you conveniently criticized simply believed that they need to first have a country of their own, and then fight to realize democracy, if they can’t have that from the get-go. I hope now you see their point and it is not as heinous as you have suggested.
Taiwan under KMT had no country, the ROC government is not a country and serves only as an administrator on limbo cession of Taiwan since 1951. Taiwan under the international legal principles and universal human rights principles, belong to the people of Taiwan only. The TI movement is not about “switching” a country or ‘breaking free” from a country, it is to establish an independent sovereign state from a steward’s control. Taiwanese desire democracy and autonomy, and the only way to truly fulfill that is first create an independent state of their own, and make the decision of maintaining a democratic system.
Thanks.
I forgot to mention one last point.
You said you would vote “unification” if either choice would not affect Taiwan’s democracy and Taiwan should establish mutual trust with mainland China and it will lead to greater and faster improvement of Chinese democracy. I totally understand why you would have this view because you have already established the notion that Taiwan is a part of China, but due to various reasons, China is split now and run independently.
This would conflict what Taiwanese independence supporters. To Taiwanese independence supporters, Taiwan is not a part of China, and unification is a form of integrating to a foreign country. Bluntly put, being absorbed by another country. To the Taiwanese people, they would probably ask you, why can’t China and Taiwan build mutual trust and cooperations as TWO INDEPENDENT STATES? With both sides being fully autonomous and sovereign, they will have more reasons to have mutual respect, and work on closer relations such as trade agreements and defense pacts. Why not two countries as brothers? Why Taiwan must be a limb of China instead?
Would you have voted UNIFICATION with Japan if we are back in the 1940′s and Japanese offer Chinese democracy? Would you have not wanted China to be China no matter how disgusting the Chinese political system may be? I doubt you would have democracy > Chinese nation then. At the end, you would still share similar opinion with the “deep greens”, lets have our country first and then push democracy.
People often care more about what they lacking. A poor man cares about money, and a rich man cares about security. You have never been born in a country that isnt yours, China has always been China, even as a Uighur you question the independence movement in Xinjiang for you would much rather have them getting geneuine autonomy under China instead. What you have cared about is democracy, because nationhood is given to you. Something that is given has no value, at least compare to things you need to earn. For Taiwanese people today, democracy has been realized, to people who support independence, it is also seen as a given. Which is a reason why Taiwanese independence supporters would value statehood more than democracy.