Saturday, February 12, 2022

The Establishment

中文在下方

In many countries there exists a group of dominant people who, for various reasons, consider themselves to be natural born leaders and, for some amorphous reason, should be running things. Taiwan is no exception. 

The collective noun for such groups is ‘The Establishment’ a term first coined in the 1950s by  British journalist Henry Fairlie, who said, “By the Establishment, I do not only mean the centres of official power, though they are certainly part of it, but rather the whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised. The exercise of power in the United Kingdom  cannot be understood unless it is recognized that it is exercised socially.”

It is a term that has since slipped into common parlance, particularly in the media. In the United Kingdom the establishment is sharply defined and easy to identify. If you asked pretty much anyone in the UK, including teenagers or those even younger, who ‘The Establishment’ was they will tell you it means the Royal Family, the landed gentry (dukes, earls, lords and suchlike), and some might include the police and the army. Others might also add in lawyers, industrialists, bankers and even church leaders. 

If you ask the same people which political party do people in these groups represent, they would say without hesitation The Conservative Party. The Conservative, or Tory, party is very much the political party of the establishment and it is widely known Queen Elizabeth II favours the Conservative party, although she would never express any political opinion publicly.

In the United States it is White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPS) who make up the bulk of the establishment, as they have done since the independence of the colonies after the Revolutionary War and subsequent peace treaty in 1783. Hong Kong has a new establishment which since 1997 has become any pro-Beijing group, many of which are now highly influential, for one reason or another.

Generally speaking, establishment people are richer members of a society and seen as being more self-interested and caring less about the common man.

Establishments in any country wield background power no matter which party is actually in power. In the UK for example, a Labour government would still have to do battle with rich and powerful industrialists, bankers and titled people, who would mostly tend to be on the side of the Conservatives. Study US politics for five minutes and you will see the same is happening there right now with the Democrats and Republicans.

In Taiwan it is easy to see which political party represents ‘The Establishment’. It is Kuomintang, and given they ruled under martial law from 1949 to 1987 it is no real surprise that actions during those years have left a legacy which considerably underpins the political power they wield in terms of who their rich and influential friends are. 

However, the establishment does not get its own way all the time, despite the disproportionate amount of background power they wield, and those opposed do get to win elections. As is the case now in Taiwan and the United States. 

Britain has fallen back to the establishment Conservatie Party and now has a Prime Minister who is one of the social elite, went to one of the most expensive schools, a top university and is pretty much the poster boy of what an establishment figure is. His cabinet consists of billionaires and broadly the same kind of person he is.

The entrenched privilege of the so-called elite means they not only have background influence via their friends, families and network of like-minds, but they also tend to display an arrogance that they are the ones who should control things. This attitude largely built on money and that background existing influence. It is one of the main reasons political parties in opposition to establishment parties have to be smarter and work harder in office.

One theme that runs true when an establishment party is in opposition is in the nature of the way they behave. Often they will criticize the incumbent administration’s actions without coming up with ideas or policies of their own. This is evident in the US at the moment with the Republicans, and the KMT do this all the time.

I struggle to remember a statement from the KMT which first criticized something the DPP were doing and then immediately came up with a counter policy or suggestion of how things should be done differently.  

They, like the Republicans, seem devoid of any real policies aside from broad sweeping statements which really amount to little more than “Well, we would just do a much better job”.

The elitist arrogance shines through with many statements the KMT makes about current government policy. It is a similar picture with Eric Chew’s planned visit to the United States. 

Considering themselves to be historically in tune with the US as well as a good friend for so many years, it is likely he expects to receive a warm welcome. One wonders if it will be a case as it seems more likely they will say “Well yes, but that was then, and this is now”. I’m sure the KMT’s recent opposition to US pork imports will not be forgotten simply because their referendum failed and the ban never happened.

Being an opposition party is not easy and it would appear the KMT still have not fully got used to the idea even after a term and a half out of power. They simply do not seem to be able to get used to it, or, as the establishment, they feel in the natural course of things they will be running the country again soon, because somehow that is the way it will be and the establishment will always win in the end. 

Remember, the KMT did not have to work very hard to win power back from the DPP’s Chen Shui-bian whose popularity collapsed towards the end of his term because of corruption scandals. 

When I was a young journalist an older and far more experienced colleague told me…”Remember with elections, a party does not win, the other side loses.” That has been true for many elections I subsequently covered and in most cases it was mistakes that dictated the outcome, not successes.  

So the KMT are unused to winning back power from a steady, stable and relatively popular incumbent party, and the learning curve is a steep one for them ahead of the local elections at the end of this year and the Presidential election in two years.   

Losing their arrogance and inbuilt assumption that they are the natural leaders has to give way to making themselves more electable by forming solid policies and a stream of ideas so voters actually see them as a credible party. Simply constantly criticizing everything the DPP does will not get them very far. 

This is assuming the DDP does not make some huge policy errors in the meantime. Outside of that seemingly remote possibility, the only thing the KMT can do is prove they have new and progressive policies backed up with data and budgets to differentiate them from the incumbents.  

Promising to run the country somehow ‘better’ than the other side doesn’t wash with most voters who look for specifics come election time. A manifesto with solid and practical goals, properly planned and budgeted for is what they need to have, not broad and meaningless aims.

It would be refreshing to see some intelligent, well researched and backed-up ideas being put forward, rather than us all having to put up with the constant mud-slinging. Speaking for myself, I find it tedious and boring.    

Tinkerty Tonk...

從建制派看國民黨

 2022 年 2 月 11 日 2987 人閱讀

許多國家都有一群佔主導地位的人,出於各種原因他們認為自己是天生的領導者,更出於某種不明確的原因,他們認為掌權的應該是自己。台灣也不例外。

「建制派」就是社會的高層頂尖人士

這些團體的統稱是「建制派」(The Establishment),這是 1950 年代英國記者亨利.費爾利(Henry Fairlie)提出的術語,他是這麼說的:「建制派不僅指公共權力中心,雖然他們肯定是其中的一部分,更是行使權力的整個官方和社會關係矩陣。除非意識到權力是在社會上行使,否則無法理解權力如何在英國運作。」

此後該術語成為一個普遍用語,尤其被媒體廣泛使用。在英國建制派的定義明確且易於識別,如果你問英國的任何人,包括青少年甚至更年輕的人,他們會告訴你這意味著皇室、仕紳(公爵、伯爵、領主等),也可能包括警察和軍隊。有些人也會把律師、企業家、銀行家甚至教會歸類為建制派。

如果你問這些人,建制派群體中的人代表哪個政黨,他們會毫不猶豫地說保守黨。保守黨,或也就是托利黨,很大程度上是建制派的政黨,眾所周知伊麗莎白二世女王偏愛保守黨,儘管她永遠不會公開表達任何政治觀點。

在美國,自獨立戰爭和隨後的 1783 年和平條約以來,白人盎格魯撒克遜新教徒 (WASPS) 構成了大部分的建制派。 而香港的建制派,則是自 1997 年以來的親北京的團體,其中許多現在具有極大的影響力。

一般來說,建制派人士是社會中相對富有的成員,被視為比較自私,對普通人也較不關心。

而無論實際政府是誰,任何國家的建制派都掌握著幕後權力。例如在英國,工黨政府仍須與傾向於站在保守黨一邊的企業家、銀行家、有頭銜的人士、頂級律師等群體奮戰。只要研究美國政治五分鐘,你會發現同樣的事也發生在民主黨人和共和黨人之間。

在台灣很容易看出哪個政黨代表建制派,是國民黨。鑑於他們在 1949 年至 1987 年期間實行戒嚴令,那些年的統治鞏固了他們和有力的朋友的政治權力,這並不奇怪。

儘管擁有不成比例的權力,建制派也不能一直為所欲為,對立方也會贏得了選舉,就像現在台灣和美國的情況一樣。

至於英國則已經又回到建制派的保守黨,現任首相就是公認的社會菁英,就讀於英國最昂貴的學校之一,進入頂尖大學,如果你需要幫建制派做張宣傳海報,他就是海報上那個代言人。他的內閣由億萬富翁組成,和他大致是同一類的人。

這種所謂的菁英擁有根深柢固的特權,他們不僅透過他們的朋友、家人和志同道合的組織得到幕後影響,而且還傾向於表現出他們應該有控制權的傲慢,這種態度在很大程度上是建立在金錢和他們既有的影響力上。這就是為什麼反對建制派的政黨執政時,他們必須更聰明並且更努力。

當建制派成為反對黨時,有一個不變的特質,那就是他們通常批評現任政府,卻無法提出自己的想法或政策。這一點在目前美國共和黨身上很明顯,國民黨也一直是這樣。

圖片來源:翻攝自華視新聞YouTube頻道

國民黨表現的就只是失去權力的不安與躁動

就我印象所及,我想不出國民黨在批評民進黨正在做的事情之後,立即提出一項對應政策,或是建議如何以不同的方式處理。

與共和黨人一樣,除了空泛而籠統的聲明,國民黨似乎沒有任何真正的政策,而這些聲明實際上只不過是「我們會比你們做得更好。」

國民黨對當前政府政策的許多意見都展現了菁英主義的傲慢,這與主席朱立倫計劃訪問美國的情況相似。

國民黨認為自己一直是與美國為善的政黨,也是多年來的好朋友,可能希望黨主席訪問時受到熱烈的歡迎。不過你不禁要懷疑這個可能性,因為對方似乎更有可能說:「是的但那個時候是那個時候,現在是現在。」我相信國民黨最近對美國豬肉進口的極力反對,不會僅僅因為公投沒有過關禁令沒有實施,就會被忘得一乾二淨。

當一個反對黨並不容易,即使在失去執政權一個半任期後,國民黨似乎還沒有完全習慣這個想法。或許他們根本無法適應,或許作為建制派他們認為自然而然很快就會再次治理這個國家,因為建制派終將獲勝。

但是不要忘記,當年的總統陳水扁因醜聞而聲名狼藉,國民黨不必非常努力就從民進黨手中拿回政權。

決定選戰勝負的是誰錯誤較多、較嚴重

當我還是一名年輕記者時,一位年長且經驗豐富的同事告訴我:「記住,在選舉中不是一方贏了,而是另一方輸了。」我隨後報導的許多選舉都是如此,在大多數情況下,決定結果的是錯誤,而不是成功。

國民黨一定不習慣從一個穩定和相對受歡迎的執政黨手中奪回權力,因此在今年年底的地方選舉和兩年後的總統選舉之前,他們的學習曲線將會十分陡峭。

他們必須摒除他們是天生領導人的傲慢和假設,必須透過可靠的政策和見解來贏得選票,這樣選民才能真正將他們視為一個可信的政黨。僅僅不斷地批評民進黨所做的一切,不會讓他們走得太遠。

這是假設民進黨在此期間沒有犯一些重大的政策錯誤,而犯這種錯誤的可能性目前看來可能性也不高,因此國民黨唯一能做的就是證明他們有新的和進步的政策,以數據和預算為後盾,和現任執政者做出區別。

光是口頭承諾以某種比對手「更好」的方式治理國家,並不會被大多數在選舉時間注意細節的選民認同。他們需要穩固實際的目標以及完整適當的計劃,而不是空泛而無意義的方向。

如果國民黨能夠提出一些聰明的,經過充分研究並且有證據支持的想法和政策,那將會令人耳目一新。就我自己而言,目前所有人不得不忍受不斷的扔泥巴伎倆,實在非常乏味和無聊。

留言評論

延伸閱讀

No comments:

Post a Comment