The 59.16 percent turnout rate of the legislative elections marked a new low in Taiwan's electoral history. Many voters may have contracted "election fatigue," so that no matter how hard the pan-blue and the pan-green camps tried to motivate them using sensational rhetoric, they could not increase the level of interest.
Now that the elections are over, all candidates, both winners and losers, should not forget this lesson. They should not let this instance of "election fatigue" deteriorate into "democracy fatigue," exacerbating the public's existing political apathy. In the long run, this indifference could become an incurable disorder, and then it will be too late to seek a cure.
Compared with the previous legislative elections, why was this election so lackluster and the campaign so chaotic that the candidates failed to stand out? The main reason may be that party leaders from both camps focused on sensitive issues carried over from the presidential election; it simply became overtime for the presidential election.
As such, the legislative candidates had little opportunity to express their political opinions and personal qualities. Ultimately, due to the failure of the vote-allocation strategy, it all came down to sympathy votes for underdog candidates.
The worst aspect of vote-allocation is the high level of uncertainty that comes with it. Apart from passively following the instructions of the party on how to vote, voters are often influenced by the call to "save" certain candidates. In this election, votes were concentrated on underdog candidates, so that they won with huge margins, while candidates that had been high in the polls failed to get elected.
Because of the multi-member district system, vote-allocation has been a part of every legislative election. In the last one it was the blue camp that suffered, but this time it was the green camp.
Several election commentators say the pan-green camp nominated too many candidates without the ability to attract more voters. As a result of its failed vote-allocation strategy, the green camp, in certain districts, lost seats it should have won. As as result, the dream of having a legislative majority failed to come true.
Looking back on the election, we can see that apart from a small number of issues, such as the arms procurement budget and subsidies for the elderly -- which can be considered public policy issues -- the tendency was for campaigns to focus on "high-level" or conceptual issues that had nothing to do with people's daily lives.
This battle around conceptual issues, included the matter of changing Taiwan's name and constitutional reform, which, while not unimportant, tended to lead voters to believe that the election had little to do with them directly.
There was also a segment of the electorate that had simply become fed up with the endless political rhetoric and believed that whoever won a majority, the legislature would remain equally chaotic. This segment, therefore, simply couldn't be bothered to vote.
It appeared that the green camp's goal of achieving a clear majority in the legislature had little to do with actually improving the lives of ordinary people. Even though President Chen Shui-bian (
Now that they have been taught a lesson, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Taiwan Solidarity Union must change their strategy and put more effort into quality of life issues if they are to survive the halving of the legislature and the introduction of single-member districts in 2007.
Although the pan-blue camp has retained a majority, if they get too arrogant and take the opportunity to "disarm" the DPP -- forcing it to give up the right to form a Cabinet, or continuing to make the legislature a battlefield over the issues of national status, cross-strait relations and ideological matters -- they will be seen regarded as being irresponsible.
If they undermine the DPP's ability to achieve anything in government, the blue camp would be seen as seeking only to increase its own power without regard to political or social stability.
The best policy for the pan-blue camp will simply be to make their presence felt in the legislature, while at the same time implementing internal reforms and a generational shift in the leadership, so that they can put aside the popular impression that they are incapable of separating party and state. If the pan-blue camp is able to show that it is capable of introspection even in victory, who can say that it will never again win power?
We also must point out that democratic politics are not just a battle between government and opposition, for the spirit of democracy is the power of the people. So although the people elect their representatives, as citizens they must continue to monitor the performance of their representatives and take an active part in public affairs.
Although the election is now over, there are some unsatisfactory aspects to the event that still warrant consideration.
Only when increasing numbers of people become unsatisfied with simply being a voter, and learn more about exercising the rights of a citizen, will Taiwan have a mature and balanced democracy.
If this happens, in future elections, those citizens unsatisfied with the state of things will not shirk their responsibility to vote, but will exercise their ability to collectively counterbalance political power and help direct the country along the path of greater prosperity. The experience of Western nations suggests that this is the only way to achieve a truly effective democratic government.
Ku Chung-hwa is a professor of sociology at National Chengchi University and chairman of the Taipei Society.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti and Ian Bartholomew
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS