Is the protest democratic?

My views on the protests against the passing of the Services Trade Agreement have probably swung back and forth several times over the past few days.

Currently the issue that I'm mulling over is whether or not the protester's current actions are justified. Accordingly strictly to rule of law, this protest has probably stepped a bit beyond, but is it democratic? In most cases, I would argue that it isn't justified, and that by abandoning normal democratic procedure, you run the risk of causing worse problems down the road. For example, I feel the redshirt protests calling for President Chen's resignation were definitely the wrong way to go about doing things, and President Ma certainly does look a bit foolish now by showing his support in that case, and turning around criticizing protesters in this situation.

Overall though, I believe that this exceptional situation justifies extra-legal action.

Putting aside whether or not this agreement is good or bad, it's undeniable that it could alter Taiwan's path decisively. In addition to creating more favorable international trade conditions, it also is linked to the question of Taiwan's sovereignty, due largely to the fact that China blatantly sees this as part of its efforts to annex Taiwan. Something this important needs to be legitimized, and will I understand that the KMT believed this was vital and urgent enough to justify shortcuts, I believe this method was short-sighted. The content of the agreement is ironically secondary, at least in my opinion. The key now is whether or not we follow democratic procedure, and the precedent it sets for future issues.

 The KMT won all the important recent elections, and its numbers allow it to pass the agreement - without any changes if it wants to, but there are rules that need to be followed. You cannot simply try and sneak something through due to opposition obstruction. Try to imagine if Obama unilaterally decided that he didn't need to respect a Republican filibuster against the passage of the Affordable Care Act. It was because of the threat of 60 require votes that he watered it down so much. He still got it passed, as the Democrats held the majority as well as the White House, but it was a compromise through and through, despite the fact that no Republicans ultimately voted for it.

The key is that when the opposition party decides that it wants to push back hard against something, it forces the majority to unify. It's a messy and time-consuming process, and forces the ruling party to take responsibility for its votes. You can see this in American politics all the time. If the Democrats were all unified behind the ACA, we might have had something similar to a single-payer health care system like Taiwan. Instead, we got something straight out of the Republican playbook of the 90s (I believe it's an improvement compared to the previous status quo, but far from ideal). Many Democrats were afraid that the ACA wouldn't work as hoped, and as such shied against voting for it an a unified bloc. Similarly, I'm fairly certain that the KMT actually has enough votes to put this through - without changes, if it wants - but enough of its legislators probably don't want to take the blame for the inevitable economic damage it will cause to *some* people. (I am in support of Free Trade Agreements, but I also recognize that there will be losers in it, and a responsible society plans for a smooth transition)

And so, without unity, the KMT tried to take a shortcut.

But you can't and shouldn't do that in a democracy. At first, I thought that this protest would fizzle out and get ignored like all the other protests against perceived government overreaches in power over the past few years. But there are several factors that lead me to believe that we may in fact see the bill sent back for approval in a manner acceptable to the people.

First of all, the older generation of Taiwanese people are wary of rocking the boat. They are fearful of harming established interests, and you can see this most obviously in the way that some news outlets are covering the protests - absolutely unfair and biased - it's pretty horrendous stuff. But overall, I think that enough people see that the protesters (students in particular) are surprisingly well behaved, especially in contrast to protests in other countries. An artist from Spain that my company is working with arrived in Taiwan a few days ago, and remarked positively that it was impressive how people weren't tossing molotovs and rioting. Brings some perspective to the situation, I suppose. Good behavior in of itself goes a long way towards legitimacy, and for the most part (despite what the media would have you believe), this protest passes the test.

I don't think this is completely undemocratic, because democracy is more than just about respecting established rules, but also the process in which rules are made, and interpreting what they are. If abiding by the law is the definition of democracy, then China is a democracy - you see the absurdity here - the main difference between China and Taiwan is that in the latter country, you have the right to shape what the rules are.

Although China's actions could throw a wrench in my calculations, I think it's likely we'll see a democratic outcome. If you have 20 people occupy the Legislative Yuan, it'll take 15 minutes for the riot police to remove them. But we have nearly 20,000 people out on the streets (perhaps more) - at this point, (if Ma is smart enough), he won't try to put down this demonstration violently, because that would tarnish the agreement itself, and completely backfire. If you brutalize these 20,000, you've stirred up the hornet's nest and you've now got the previously apathetic (or family members) all mobilizing. If they weren't against the agreement before, they're now against whatever you do out of pure principle. That would be a terrible shame, because Taiwan *really needs* to sign a free trade agreement with China.

That said, we don't have 200,000 people protesting. If that were the case, then you might be justified in terminating the agreement immediately. However, I believe that (according to polling data), you have a rather large number of people in *support* of the agreement. The key is that the demonstrators are not a monolithic group, and that killing the agreement is not a universal demand. So it's possible that you could salvage it, by going back to send it up again for review via a fairer process.

 I don't believe the bill should undergo line-by-line review - that's absolutely stupid and impossible (see explanation below). But the protesters don't even have to ask for that much. This is in no way like the Arab Spring or Occupy - while many are pissed at Ma and the KMT for its actions (a buildup of many things really, and not this isolated incident), I see very few calling for government overthrow. Simply put, the ultimate desire should be for politicians to respect the democratic process. Eventually, the occupation of Parliament will end, and the Legislators will vote. But this time, they understand that the Taiwanese people are watching, as it should be in a representative democracy. Even if the agreement ultimately passed and approved is identical in content to the current bill, I would have no objection to it. You simply can't pass try and pass it right now, because it may take a few months for emotions to settle.

**I suppose I ought to explain why I am against line-by-line review for trade legislation.**

To successfully sign a trade agreement, you basically have to go through three stages of negotiations. The steps outlined below are of course theoretical, because China is in such a position of strength that they really don't have to give anything up unwillingly. But humor me a bit.

The first stage is internal negotiation within Taiwan (China would do the same), to come to a consensus on what you're willing to give up, and what goals you want to achieve.
The second stage is to bring these goals to a negotiation with China, where you come to a compromise. Both sides give a bit and gain a bit, though as mentioned above, Taiwan would understandably give more and gain less. That's fair enough.
The third stage is to bring this agreement that has been agreed upon with China back to Taiwan, for a vote.

You simply cannot have complete transparency in the first or second stages. You cannot make internal negotiation public, as it exposes to China (and other countries) exactly what your boundaries are, and puts you in terrible negotiating position. This of course also applies to the second stage. At the third stage, the procedure can and should be transparent (hence what I was saying above about KMT legislators putting their stamp of approval and standing behind their votes). But you can't go through and approve or reject line by line - that would make an absolute mockery of the previous negotiations, and would kill the bill (because it causes renegotiation with China). Who in their right mind would accept an agreement in which the other side has rejected everything unfavorable to them (and favorable to you)?

You win some and you lose some. If you're the weaker party, you may give up more, and that's just life. The key is whether or not you gain at all, rather than how much you gained compared to the other party. That's why I think arguments against this agreement being in favor of China are misguided. Of course China benefits disproportionately in some spheres. Do you think Taiwan would be able to sign an FTA with completely favorable conditions with a stronger country, like Korea?