李總統登輝先生今天參加第三波民主化政治國際學術研討會開幕典禮，並應邀致詞。
總統致詞內容為：
由美國全國民主基金會與我國國家政策研究中心，所共同舉辦的「第三波民主化」研討會，今天在中華民國台北市舉行。來自世界近三十個國家與地區的政治領袖和學術界菁英，懷抱著崇高的民主信念，未來四天內，將與本地學者同聚一堂，針對民主政治的實踐經驗與發展前景，進行深入研討，登輝奉邀致詞，深感榮幸，在此謹代表中華民國政府和人民，對本次會議的舉行表示祝賀之意，也對遠道而來的各國貴賓，敬致歡迎之忱。
去年（一九九四），前蘇聯總統戈巴契夫先生應邀前來我國訪問，與本人會見，我們針對蘇聯改革的經驗交換意見，當時登輝說，政治改革和經濟改革是一組二元聯立方程式。意思是政治改革和經濟改革缺一不可，只注意一方面，殊難有成。至於這組二元聯立方程式應先解那一式，則因各國特殊條件以及面臨的問題而異。以台灣的經驗來說，顯然是經濟改革作為先導，在其他相關時機與條件一應俱備之時，政治改革就水到渠成了。
政治的改革或發展，的確是不能單靠經濟變革的支持，而須看個別的情況而定。所謂政治改革或發展，是一種龐大複雜的社會工程，不但牽涉該社會裡的各種團體和力量，也和該社會的文化傳統息息相關。政治發展和文化的關連，我再借用代數的觀念來表達，就像函數f(x)，x表示文化，文化內涵不同，政治發展的走向或結論，也就不會一樣。
過去從歷史文化討論中國政治發展的學者，一般都喜歡根據一些歷史資料，建構某種理論，以解釋政治現狀的問題，進而預測未來的發展。譬如有些學者會說，中國社會的傳統重視權威，集體性強，缺乏個人主義，不尊重人權，所以中國政治的發展必脫離不了威權主義的色彩云云。這一類的意見當然可以當作學術問題深入分析，但也要對實際情況能做成合理的解釋，才能為人接受。以最近不到五年內台灣政治的種種發展而論，過去一般以傳統歷史文化為依據的見解，顯然無法圓滿解釋。所以，我們應該先釐清政治發展的現實，再探索其文化傳統，這樣才可能比較客觀地釐清兩者之間的關連性。
當然政治改革或發展的成功，條件是很複雜的，我們不會把文化傳統當做唯一重要的因素。政治學者大概多承認政治體制不是抽象的概念，譬如民主，雖然大原則是相通的，但具體內容以及落實的方式，即使在西歐和美國這種文化同質性較高的地區，也有不小的差異，這些差異正是各個國家或社會之歷史條件和文化傳統的差異。所以我想藉這個學術討論會的場合，以台灣政治改革和發展為例，在經濟性的解釋之外，再進一步提出歷史文化的說明，純從學術觀點請各位專家指教。
台灣屬於中國文化大體系中的一部分。過去兩千年，中國的政治制度是以皇帝為首的中央集權政府，缺乏西方式的民主，沒有議會制度，這些都是歷史事實。抗日戰後中國共產黨擴大叛亂，政府乃在民國三十七年（一九四八）頒行「動員戡亂時期臨時條款」。次年，政府播遷來臺，在中國共產黨的威脅下，「臨時條款」繼續存在長達四十三年之久，至民國八十年（一九九一）才廢止。「臨時條款」限制中華民國憲法所賦予人民的權利，中華民國成為一個處於戰爭狀態的戒嚴國家。在臨時條款廢止五年不到的時間內，中華民國進行一連串的政治改革，包括修訂中華民國憲法，終止動員戡亂時期，完成第一屆中央民意代表全面退職，改選國會議員，確立地方自治和總統、副總統統直接民選法源：中華民國於是成為「主權在民」的民主國家。
現在的中華民國已走上民主政治，沒有絕對的政治權威，也沒有不合理的政治壟斷，社會上存在著多種不同的政治主張，形成各種政黨；基本上都能秉持理性的態度，公平合理地競爭，以爭取人民的支持；人民也能在法律的範圍內，運用他們的自由權利。中華民國在創造了「經濟奇蹟」之後，又創造了「政治奇蹟」，外國有些評論家稱讚這是一場「寧靜革命」。中華民國承繼了兩千年之久的皇帝制度的傳統，再加上四十年動員戡亂的艱難背景，卻能在和平中完成這番歷史性的政治改造工程大業，這個事實值得人文社會科學學者重視。登輝相信成功原因是多層次的，而且每一層次的因素也都可能有它們不可或缺的效用。現在我想從中國文化所講的政府與人民的關係，看古典政治思想在台灣政治發展中所發揮的作用。
民主政治是以全民大眾為主體的政治，其終極目的在於締造人民最大的福祉。歷史上這種理念雖以多種不同形式來落實，但都未背離「主權在民」的原則，離開「主權在民」，就不可能有民主政治。但民主理念與政治形式之間是存有某種差距的，自從人類形成比較龐大、複雜的群體後，公共事務便逐漸歸給少數人承擔，不可能由全部社群成員負責。換句話說，少數人成為統治者，多數人是被統治者，統治者有權力，支配更多的資源，被統治者則相反。從理論來說，這似乎是政治形式無可避免的走向。
因為人民更不可能直接來管理國家的事務，所以脫離君主政治以後的共和國家，只能實行所謂的間接民主。究竟擁有公權力、執行公務的「政府」，和國家主權之所有者的「人民」之間，應有怎樣的關係才合理？這是大家所共同關心的課題。
現在世界上的民主政治如同其他政治體制，都是歷史發展的結果，恐怕沒有兩個國家是一模一樣的。以比較上軌道的國家來說，她們發展的過程有的比較溫和，有的相當激烈，但基本概念都建立在人民與政府的對立關係上。因為今日西方民主政治大抵都是從君主政治轉變來的，人民向國君爭取權力，自然就對立，所以討論民主政治不能離開各國的歷史實際情況。
回顧西歐的歷史經驗，被統治的人民透過各種方式向執行統治的政府爭取到更多的權力。在這些過程中，有的國王走上斷頭台，有的國王流亡，有的國王淪為虛位君主，最後的共同現象是人民提升為國家的主人。歐洲近代民主發展史顯示，人民爭取權力，採用的手段愈溫和者，國家政體與制度的轉型愈遲緩而穩當；相反的，手段激烈者，轉型快速但多動盪。對社會的衝擊，後者當然遠比前者為大。
台灣過去五年來的政治改革，不論放在兩千年的中國歷史或八十多年的中華民國歷史來看，都可以稱得上是非常劇烈而快速的變動，但台灣付出的代價卻極為低微。我們的經濟持續成長，社會持續建設，文教持續發展，人民的生活更為富裕，其中原因是什麼？登輝常想，以「人民與政府對立」的規律，是不能圓滿解釋台灣近五年來政治發展經驗的，登輝認為合理的答案就在文化傳統。那是存在於一個民族、社會比較底層的因子，如果不仔細觀察，往往會被埋沒在熱鬧的權力鬥爭下。
「從民所欲」，是現在民主政治最簡明的註腳。而這種主政者的理念，在我國古文化裏，卻是唾手可得。充份證明當時的政治思想，基本上肯定政治的終極目的是要達成人民的意願，也就是現代民主政治所強調的政府功能。
這些文獻，最早的一份，是出現在西元前二十一世紀大禹王時代，主管法律的皋陶對禹王說：「老天爺會聽會看，但祂的聽看是來自人民；老天爺會揚善懲惡，但祂的揚善懲惡是來自人民」（天聰明，自我民聽；天明畏，自我民威。）類似的話在西元前十一世紀，周武王出兵討伐紂王時，也曾再被提起。
今年六月登輝在康乃爾大學演講，特別提到「民之所欲，天必從之」的古訓，這一句話據說是西元前十一世紀武王出兵前宣誓的誓詞。語意與前面所提到皋陶對禹王說的話，是相接近，惟更具有積極的意義。老天既順從民意，民意有了表答的對象，人民的主動性就會更強，而不是消極的反映民意而已。西元前三世紀的孟子也曾經說：「民欲與之聚之，所惡勿施爾也」，人民想要的就給他們，人民不要的、厭惡的，千萬不要強加在他們身上。能夠這樣，就能得民心，就能贏得人民支持，就能獲得執政的機會。所以中國古典智慧，提醒執政的人要時時刻刻體察民意，順從民意，其實這就是「主權在民」的實踐。
政府與人民互為一體，也是我國固有的政治理念。古典政治思想家認為，政府與人民是和諧一體的，而不是對立的兩極，西元前七世紀周王朝有一位史官引述夏書說：「如果民眾不擁戴國王，要擁戴誰呢？國王如果沒有民眾支持，也無法守住國家。」（眾非元后，何戴？后非眾，無與守邦。）另外商書也有類似的話。後來的孔子周遊列國，奉勸執政的人要實施「仁政」，孟子也到處推廣「王政」，都是主張透過施政的作為，拉近政府與人民的距離。戰國時代儒家以人體比喻說：「人民以國君作心，國君以人民作體。」（民以君為心，君以民為體。）表面上看來，身體隨心所好，似乎人民也順著國君；但深一層看，心靠身體的保護才得安全，心也會隨身體受傷而受傷，就像國君和人民是一體存在的關係。
從民所欲或是政府與人民一體，都是今天民主政治的理念基礎，雖然早已出現在我國先民的政治活動中，可惜因為後來封建思想的形成，斲傷了此一思想的發展茁壯。雖然如此，但是這個理想在中國數千年歷史中，始終沒有消失過，一直是中國人民不斷追求的目標。中國歷代皇帝，不論多麼專制自私，幾乎沒人敢明目張膽的排斥民意，沒有人敢公然說為政不必以人民福祉為依歸。可見這些思想的影響力是一直存在的。今天我們把中國固有文化中，崇尚民意、主張政府與人民互為一體的政治理念，注入現代民主制度中，相信會給民主政治增加新的活力。
登輝深信，中華民國最近五年來政治改革，所以能夠順利達成，文化是最重要的因素。登輝近來提出「經營大台灣，建立新中原」的方針，相信在以「經濟奇蹟」和「政治奇蹟」相互輝映的台灣經驗之中，其深層處確是蘊含著深厚的文化傳統。這個文化傳統應該遠溯到西元前三世紀末皇帝制度形成以前的古典時代，那是還沒有受到後世帝王政治污染，帶有清新樸素活力的中原文化。古典的中原文化與我們相差兩千年以上，當然不可能原封不動地搬過來，必須經過一番創造性的轉化，所謂「新中原」的「新」就是創造性的轉化，是我們日後文化建設的方向。登輝認為清新樸素的古典文明，必將是我們取之不盡、用之不竭的思想泉源。
各位女士、各位先生：世界各地崇尚民主政治的菁英人士前來出席這次會議，無疑是第三波民主化浪潮的開花結果，使你我之間形成一種超國界、超文化的緊密結合，也是一種因為熱愛民主政治而獻身的緊密結合。登輝希望而且相信，這樣的緊密結合，將有助於增進我們彼此的共識和友誼。我們衷心期待與大家共同努力進行理論學術與經驗實務上的精進提升，以建立一個真的完全屬於民主政治的世界；也衷心期待大家從這次會議所帶回去的，不只是對民主政治發展有更進一步的評估與了解；更包涵我們國家和人民殷盼國際社會給予我們公平待遇的熱望。同時歡迎這樣具有意義的國際會議，能夠經常在這裡舉行。
最後預祝會議圓滿成功！各位健康快樂！謝謝。
Democracy in the ROC: Drawing New Vitality from
Cultural Regeneration
An Address to the International Conference on
Consolidating the Third Wave Democracies
Lee Teng-hui
President
Republic of China
August 27, 1995
President Gershman, President Tien, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen:
It is my honor to be with you today in Taipei at the opening ceremony of the International Conference on Consolidating the Third Wave Democracies, hosted by the Institute for National Policy Research of Taipei and the National Endowment for Democracy of Washington, D.C. This significant conference brings together political leaders and distinguished scholars from nearly thirty nations who share a keen interest in the noble cause of democracy to meet with experts in the Republic of China and share views on the practice of democracy for the next four days. On this auspicious occasion, on behalf of the government and people of the Republic of China, I would like to express my heartiest felicitations on the holding of this important conference and my sincerest welcome to those distinguished guests from afar.
Last year, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev accepted an invitation to visit the ROC. During my meeting with him, we exchanged views on reforms ln the former Soviet Union. I stated then that political and economic reforms are simultaneous equations with two unknowns. What I meant was that political and economic reforms are mutually indispensable; it is difficult to get anywhere by focusing on either one alone. Which equation should be solved first depends on the conditions and problems of each country. For the Republic of China on Taiwan, economic reforms clearly led the way while political reforms just fell into place when the time and conditions were right.
Indeed, political reform or development can not depend solely on economic improvements for support, but must be determined by each individual situation. What we call political reform or development is an enormously complex social project that not only involves all sorts of social organizations and forces but also is intimately bound up with cultural heritage. In every society, culture influences political development to one degree or another. Culture can be compared to the x in f(x); that is to say, a different cultural heritage will result in a different political development or outcome.
Scholars explaining China's political development from a historical or cultural standpoint have generally been enamored of constructing their theories with historical data to explain current political issues and predict future directions. For instance, some scholars contend that China could not possibly break away from authoritarianism in her political development, because Chinese society has traditionally valued authority, is strongly group-oriented, lacks individualism, and does not respect human rights. While this kind of opinion can of course be analyzed in depth as an academic issue, it must also be able to provide a reasonable interpretation of the actual situation before it can be acceptable. Clearly, most past observations based on traditional Chinese history and culture cannot adequately explain Taiwan's political development over the last five years. Therefore, we must first sort out the actual facts of a nation's political development and then study its cultural heritage before we can somewhat objectively determine the links between the two.
Of course, the determinants of successful political reform or development are highly complex. We cannot take cultural heritage as the only important factor. Probably most political scientists would admit that the political order is not just an abstract concept. For example, although democracies share certain core principles in common, there are differences--and not so minor ones at that--in actual substance and manner of implementation, even among Western Europe and the United States, which are culturally rather similar. These institutional differences follow precisely from the differences in historical conditions and cultural traditions of each country or society. Therefore, I would like on the occasion of this academic seminar to offer our political reform and development here in the Republic of China on Taiwan as an example, and present a historical and cultural explanation instead of an economic interpretation. Please then share with me your learned views on its academic merits.
The Republic of China on Taiwan is a part of the greater Chinese cultural system. For two millennia, the Chinese political order involved a government of centralized power headed by an emperor. It lacked Western-style democracy and a parliamentary system. These are all facts of history. Following the War of Resistance Against Japan from 1937 to 1945, the Chinese Communist Party rebelled and the ROC government in 1948 promulgated the Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of Communist Rebellion. The following year, the ROC government relocated to Taiwas. Because of communist threats, the Temporary Provisions remained in effect for 43 years before they were abolished in 1991. These provisions restricted the rights given the people by the ROC Constitution, leaving the Republic of China in a state of war under martial law.
However, in less than five years, since the lifting of the Temporary Provisions, the ROC has carried out a series of political reforms, including amendments to the Constitution; termination of the Period of National Mobilization for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion; retirement of all members of the first National Assembly, Control Yuan, and Legislative Yuan; elections for all seats in the three parliamentary organs; and passage of laws governing the popular election of governor of Taiwan province and mayors of Taipei and Kaohsiung special municipalities, as well as the direct election of the president and vice president. The Republic of China has thereupon become a democratic country in which "power lies with the people."
To date, The Republic of China is moving toward democracy without absolute political authority or an unreasonable political monopoly. Many different political views co-exist in our society, resulting in the formation of political parties which have basically been able to maintain rationality and compete fairly and reasonably to win the support of the people. ROC citizens have also been able to exercise their freedom within the scope of the law. The ROC has created not only an "economic miracle" but also a "political miracle" which some have termed a "quiet revolution."
Despite the cumbersome two-thousand-year legacy of an imperial system and the tribulations of more than forty years of communist rebellion, the Republic of China has managed to complete this historic task of political re-engineering peacefully. This fact deserves the attention of scholars in the humanities and social sciences. I believe that there are many levels of reasons for this success, and that the factors at each level play a necessary role. I would now like to take a look at the influence that ancient political philosophy has had on our nation's political development in terms of what Chinese culture says about the relations between the government and the people.
Democracy is a political system where the public is the principal political entity. Its ultimate goal is to create the greatest well-being for the people. Although this precept has been realized in a variety of forms through the ages, none has deviated from the principle of "power lies with the people," the sine qua non of democracy. However, there is a certain disparity between the precept of democracy and its political manifestations. Once mankind began to form large and more complex social groups, public matters were increasingly shouldered by a few people since they could not be handled by all group members. Put another way, a minority became rulers while the majority became the ruled. The rulers had power and dominated more and more resources, while the opposite was true for the ruled. Theoretically, this was a virtually unavoidable direction for various forms of political orders to take.
Since it is impossible for the people to directly manage national affairs, republican nations that have emerged from monarchial rule have only been able to implement what is called indirect democracy. Reasonably defining the relationship between a government which has public authority and carries out public business and the people to whom sovereignty belongs is a topic of concern to us all.
Like other political systems, the world's democracies of today are the result of historical development, and perhaps no two countries are exactly alike in this respect. For some countries that are more democratically mature, the developmental process has been mild; for others, it has been fairly drastic. But the basic concept of democracy has invariably developed from an antagonistic relationship between the people and their government. Since Western democracies have generally developed from monarchies, it is natural that antagonism would have arisen when the people struggled to gain power from the monarch. Therefore, a discussion of the nature of democracy must be grounded in the historical background of each country.
Looking back at the historical experiences of Western Europe, the governed attempted to gain more power from the government through various means. In the course of their struggle, some kings were sent to the guillotine, some went into exile, and some were reduced to rulers in name only. The ultimate result was invariably that the people were elevated to the status of the masters of the country. Contemporary democratic development in Europe shows that the milder the people's fight for power, the slower but stabler was the transformation of the national political institution and system. Conversely, the more intense the struggle, the more rapid and turbulent the transformation. This latter course produces a far greater social impact than the former.
The Republic of China on Taiwan's political reform in the past five years could be termed quite dramatic and rapid, in terms of either the two thousand years of Chinese history or the eighty-some years of ROC history. Moreover, the price we have paid for it has been minuscule. Our economy has continued to expand, society has developed, education and culture have flourished, and the people's lives have become more prosperous. What is the reason for this? I have often wondered whether the rule that democracy grows out of antagonism between the people and their government can provide a satisfactory explanation of Taiwan's political development over the past five years. I believe that a reasonable answer lies in our cultural heritage, a factor that exists at a comparatively deep level in a people or society. If one doesn't look carefully, it is often obscured by heated power struggles.
"Following the hearts of the people," an idea contained in the ancient Chinese Book of History, could also serve as a succinct statement of the essence of modern democracy. This kind of precept for the head of a nation was widely prevalent in ancient Chinese culture. This amply proves that the political thought of the time basically affirmed that the ultimate objective of politics was to fulfill the wishes of the people, just as a similar function for government is stressed by democratic thought today.
Among many documents that carry such political philosophy, the foremost one was found in the era of King Yu of the 21st century B.C. Kao Tao, who was in charge of legal affairs, admonished King Yu, saying, "Heaven can see and hear, and does so through the eyes and ears of the people; Heaven rewards the virtuous and punishes the wicked, and does it through the people." A similar phrase was used in the 11th century B.C., when King Wu of the Chou dynasty sent troops to suppress the tyrannical King Chou of the Shang dynasty.
In my speech this past June at Cornell University, I specially noted the ancient teaching, "Whatever the people desire, Heaven must follow." This utterance was said to be the oath taken by King Chou's troops before going to war in the 11th century B.C. It is similar in meaning to what Kao Tao had said to King Yu, yet has more positive significance. As Heaven conforms to the popular will and the popular will finds a respondent, the people become more assertive; it is not just a passive reflection of popular will.
In the third century B.C., Mencius also said: "Give the people what they desire; never force upon them that which they abhor." By doing so, one can win the hearts of the people and their support, and thus an opportunity to rule. Therefore, ancient Chinese wisdom reminds rulers to always pay close attention to the will of the people and comply with the popular will, which is in fact the realization of the concept of popular sovereignty.
The government and people are a symbiotic unity--this is also a long-standing political precept of our nation. Ancient Chinese political philosophers believed that the government and the people are a harmonious unity, rather than an antagonistic duality. In the seventh century B.C. , an official historian of the Chou dynasty quoted the Book of Hsia: "If the people don't support their monarch, whom should they support? If a monarch doesn't have the support of the people, he can't secure his realm." A similar declaration can be found in the Book of Shang.
Centuries later, when Confucius journeyed through a number of states to disseminate his ideas, he advised the rulers to practice "benevolent governance." Mencius also promoted "kingly governance." Both preached that rulers should bring government and people closer together through the way they administered. In the Warring States Period of the fifth through third centuries B.C., the Confucianists used the metaphor that "The ruler is the mind of the people while the people are the body of the ruler." Just like the symbiotic relationship of survival between the monarch of a nation and the people, it would appear superficially that the body follows the mind much like the people obey their ruler; but upon further reflection, we realize that the mind depends upon the protection of the body for its safety, and the mind is vulnerable to injury when the body is injured.
Following what the people desire and thinking of the government and the people as a single entity are both basic precepts of democracy today. Although they both appeared early in the political activities of our Chinese forebears, it was a pity that the subsequent formation of feudalistic thinking cut short the development of this kind of thought. Nevertheless, these ideals have never disappeared over many thousands of years of Chinese history; they have always been goals constantly pursued by the Chinese people.
Virtually no Chinese emperor throughout the ages, however dictatorial or selfish, dared to openly repudiate the people's will, or dares explicitly claim that the people's welfare need not be the ultimate goal of governmental administration. Clearly, the influence of these political philosophies remained throughout. I am confident that, by injecting into our modern democratic order the political precepts long inherent in Chinese culture of exalting the people's will and claiming that the government and the people are a unity, we can infuse democracy with new vitality.
It is my firm belief that our culture is the most important factor that has allowed the Republic of China to achieve successful political reforms in the past five years. Recently I had guidelines titled "Manage the Great Taiwan, Nurture a New Chinese Culture" drawn up, believing that our profound cultural heritage is indeed deeply embedded in the Taiwan experience of creating an economic miracle and a political miracle. This cultural heritage can be traced as far back as the end of the Third century B.C., the classical age when the imperial system had not yet coalesced. Chinese culture then was fresh and pure, and had not yet been tainted by the monarchial politics of later centuries.
More than 2,000 years separate us from that classical Chinese culture, so it cannot be transplanted to our age exactly as it was, but must, rather, be creatively transformed. The "new" in the term "a New Chinese Culture" means creative transformation, and this is the direction our cultural development is heading. I believe that a fresh and unsullied Chinese classical civilization will be an inexhaustible wellspring of thought for us.
Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished people from all over the world who revere democracy have come to attend this conference. Undoubtedly, it is the result of a blossoming trend toward Third Wave Democracies that binds you and me together, getting beyond national or cultural differences; and it is also devotion and dedication to democracy that bonds us. I hope and believe that this close bond will help increase our common areas of agreement and mutual friendship. We ardently look forward to working together with everyone of you to raise the sophistication of our theoretical learning and empirical practice and to build a world that truly and fully belongs to democracy.
We also keenly hope that you will take home from this conference not just a more extensive assessment and understanding of the development of democracy, but also an awareness of the ardent longing by the government and people of the Republic of China for equal and fair treatment of our nation in the international community. We further hope that meaningful international conferences such as this will be held here more often.
In closing, may I wish this conference complete success and each of you good health and happiness! Thank you!