In the recent local elections, Taiwan's voters have dealt the Democratic National Party (DPP) a huge loss. How can we explain this strong and relatively sudden decline in the DPP's support among the electorate?
First, in most mature democracies, voters eventually vote out the government and vote in the opposition. In the eyes of the voters, as the party holding the presidency, the DPP has become the ruling party. This partially explains the losses in Ilan County, where the DPP and its dangwai (outside the party,
Second, the corruption issue resonated strongly with voters. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was much more corrupt when in power, but voters were more concerned with the current ruling party. The Chen Che-nan (
Third, we must remember that the DPP is weak organizationally even in the area of its electoral strength, the southwestern region of Taiwan. In Chiayi County, which President Chen Shui-bian (
Party identification also remains weak even among politicians. Of the 15 candidates for county commissioner and the legislature in 2001 in Chiayi County, fully two-thirds had changed party affiliation within the previous two years. This is a weakness that the DPP must overcome before it can hope to run the nation effectively.
Finally, the DPP must remember that the purpose of elections is to gain office in order to implement policies. Too often the DPP has seen elections as an end in themselves. Too many times people have gained office only to leave and run in another election. Too many times the president has called for a Cabinet reshuffle.
If Chen Ding-nan (
If this election defeat results in another churning of positions, the DPP will have gained nothing from this defeat.
Vibrant democracies require both strong ruling parties and strong opposition parties. The presidential and legislative elections are still two years away. For Taiwan's sake, let us hope that both parties use these two years to reform themselves. If they do, the nation's voters will have a choice between two decent alternatives. Then, Taiwan as a whole will benefit.
Bruce Jacobs is professor of Asian languages and studies and director of the Taiwan Research Unit at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
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