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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS