從「監督政府＝舔共」的話術，看民進黨的民主悖論 --
在成熟民主體制中，監督執政、揭露貪腐、質疑濫權，應屬公民的基本權利與義務。然而，當這些行為在當前台灣卻不斷被污名化為「舔共」、「親中」、「被滲透」，我們就應該警覺：這已不只是政治操作，而是對民主精神的侵蝕。
近年來，民進黨政府在面對質疑時，經常採取「標籤化」手段進行反擊。只要立場與其不符，就迅速將對方歸類為「中共代理人」、「統戰工具」或「破壞國家團結者」，進而迴避對實質問題的回應。
這種模式實際上呈現出一種非常危險的政治傾向：
1. 製造單一敵人：以「中國威脅」作為凝聚內部的手段。
2. 壟斷愛國話語權：將「支持我」等同於「愛台灣」。
3. 邊緣化異議：讓批判者被社會輿論自動貼標，甚至進一步透過司法系統施壓。
4. 混淆民主與忠誠：把「對政府的忠誠」錯置為「對國家的忠誠」。
尤其是在「罷免案」這類本屬憲法保障的民主制度下，當民眾依法行使權利時卻被司法調查、辦公室遭搜索、領銜人羈押，這不僅違反比例原則，更讓人質疑政府是否正以制度之名行打壓之實。
此種政治話術與極權政體常見的手法極為相似——利用民族主義與對外恐懼製造忠誠壓力，消解內部監督與民主制衡的空間。
真正的民主，不該害怕質疑；真正的自由，不該容不下不同聲音。
民進黨就是民主假貨，假民主、真獨裁！
Taiwan's "Pro-China" Label: A Dangerous Tool Against Democratic Accountability
In any healthy democracy, questioning the government, exposing corruption, or criticizing abuse of power should be seen as acts of civic responsibility. But in today’s Taiwan, such actions are increasingly being dismissed not with counterarguments—but with labels: “pro-China,” “pro-communist,” or “CCP sympathizer.”
This rhetorical tactic, often employed by the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), has created an environment where dissent is not debated—it is delegitimized.
This pattern follows a worrying logic:
- Support the government? You’re a patriot, pro-democracy, and a defender of freedom.
- Criticize the government? You’re aiding China, a national traitor, and undermining Taiwan.
Such binary narratives are not just intellectually dishonest—they are structurally corrosive to democratic discourse. By weaponizing fear of external threats (particularly China), the government has framed itself as the only legitimate guardian of Taiwan, making all dissent seem inherently dangerous or treasonous.
The consequences are far-reaching:
- Legal democratic mechanisms—like recall initiatives—have been met with police investigations, office raids, and the detention of organizers.
- News channels critical of the government have been shut down (e.g. CtiTV), while online platforms with opposing views face increasing scrutiny.
- Judicial tools, such as pre-trial detention or excessive bail, appear to be applied in politically selective ways.
This approach eerily echoes historical authoritarian models, where:
- An external enemy is created and exaggerated.
- The ruling power monopolizes the language of loyalty and patriotism.
- Critics are reframed as enemies of the state.
- Legal and institutional tools are used to suppress, not protect, democracy.
This is not the path of a confident democracy—it is the behavior of a fragile regime masking control as legitimacy.
If Taiwan is to remain a vibrant democratic society, it must reaffirm that loyalty to country does not mean loyalty to any one party, and that freedom includes the right to dissent—even during difficult times.
留言列表
