While much of the media in Taiwan is already focusing on likely candidates for president three years hence, the two main parties have yet to establish their platforms for the forthcoming campaign.
The two countries most important to Taiwan, China and the US, may want to involve themselves in the next presidential election -- both in terms of developing platforms and the choice of candidates -- much earlier than they have done in the past. They should write their plans in pencil, not ink. The complexities and uncertainties found in Taiwan today are likely to continue right up to election day.
Voters complain that the government has not provided reforms in the everyday issues that most concern them. The opposition meanwhile, by virtue of their control of the legislature, are deliberately blocking bills for political purposes. Faced with this, the electorate is tired and disappointed in politics. With national identity likely to be the major issue in the 2008 election, that attitude could bring disaster to the democracy they take for granted.
At this point, the two political parties face opposite problems. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has a more certain candidate, but an incomplete platform. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is less sure of who it will nominate, but has a platform that will likely need only a few changes. Additionally, both parties face two other elections before the presidential poll -- local elections this year and legislative elections in 2007. The issues in these polls will focus more on domestic concerns and the candidates themselves, unlike the presidential campaign, which will focus more on national concerns, security and cross-strait matters.
The DPP is now in its sixth year in government, and despite it's minority in the legislature, it has had some successes. The participation of different ethnicities in the body politic has clearly improved. So has government transparency. And there is far more recognition of national identity, both at home and abroad.
There have been some improvements in transforming the bureaucracy into national, not party, institutions and reducing corruption in business and government generally. There has been an effort to establish ceilings on the wealth of political parties and to improve the government's public relations.
At the same time, however, the DPP has had little success in two important areas -- with grassroots voters in local elections and attaining a majority in the legislative elections.
In this, the KMT has been successful, retaining the "ward boss" system that has often given it a majority in local elections -- and the "localized" legislators in the party, despite their more liberal ideology. The party doubtless also believes it has been successful in retaining support for its ideological position, but it has done so by forming its own relationship with China, and using its majority in the legislature to block governance almost completely.
The present belief is that Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is almost certain to be the KMT's candidate for the presidential election in 2008. It is still unclear, however, to what degree he will be able to establish his own policies and objectives. In the last presidential election, the party's policies became flexible, and moved very close to those of the DPP. But statements made by the party's leaders during their visits to China this year indicate that its objective is to reinstate the "one China" policy of the past. Ma apparently accepts this, putting it in the phrase "no independence."
Measures to strengthen economic and cultural relations with China in a way that would assure an eventual unification are already part of KMT policy. This will probably tilt the upcoming presidential election to being another debate on Taiwan's identity.
Taiwan's political parties are already setting their sights on the 2007 legislative elections and the 2008 presidential poll. If observers in Washington and Beijing are looking, they will see an electorate that is tired of political wrangling, including many who are willing to risk economic dependence on China. But mostly, they will see voters who are not interested, and therefore not informed, about the politics that could fundamentally change their lifestyles and their children's futures.
In play between the two major political parties are many of the normal issues debated between parties in any democracy: social welfare, construction projects, limits on political funding, pensions, personnel and budgets. The continuous jostling for advantage on these issues is normal.
Unfortunately, Taiwan has one priority issue that overshadows all the others -- the lack of consensus on national identity.
There are three years before the next president is chosen. That is a long time in politics. Perhaps, during the debates that will go on leading up to the local and legislative elections, the government, the media, universities and schools, and even the politicians, can speak to the voters about the choices for Taiwan's statehood.
That is an enormous task, but a critical necessity. Voters see "status quo" as the answer -- thinking that staying neutral can last as long as they like. My last article tried to explain why this is illusory. The result would not be a choice, but eventual unification. Ambiguity dominates the language between Taiwan, the US and China. In addition, election campaigns tend to be dominated by unreliable rhetoric. With the lack of interest among so many voters, addressing this problem should be today's top priority.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS