The opposition parties' vicious presidential recall motion failed to muster the two-thirds support it needed in the legislature, and was nixed. The pan-blues' united efforts to recall President Chen Shui-bian (
That the recall motion would fail was a foregone conclusion. As anyone with any political common sense will tell you: Seeking a recall of a popularly elected president for political reasons, and in the absence of any evidence that the president broke the law, is unacceptable by any reasonable legislator's political and ethical standards.
Partisan politics should be defined as a healthy competition between political parties that espouse different political ideals. If a precedent is set that a popularly elected president can be ousted on purely political grounds, then such a phenomenon is bound to repeat itself, no matter who is president. That is, whichever party becomes the governing party, it is bound to face the same challenge, and a vicious cycle will ensue, with parties ceaselessly trying to unseat each other's presidents.
Needless to say, the pursuit of political stability and the development of a functional multi-party system will be hindered by such tactics, and ultimately, democracy will fade. This explains why, in a mature democratic nation, opposition parties cannot seek to recall the president in such a cavalier fashion.
Recalling the president also presents problems of a technical nature. US presidential elections, for example, are almost never landslides; the winner typically wins the White House with a thin majority of votes. That is, the US public is usually not overwhelmingly in favor of one candidate or the other, making any attempt to unseat the president an extremely risky venture.
As much as the US Democratic Party detests President George W. Bush's policies and views, they have never behaved like the Taiwanese opposition by trying to drum up support to unseat the commander-in-chief.
The US boasts a rich tradition of public dissent and assembly, but rallies organized by political parties are rare; non-governmental organizations are typically the organizers of such events. In the US, partisan politics is not encouraged to spill out onto the streets.
Why were the pan-blues determined to put the recall motion to a vote when they knew full well that it would fail? Why have they slapped this on the table at the expense of political stability and national interests?
The reason is that the modern Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has a long tradition of dictatorship, and has not adapted to operating within a democratic environment of healthy competition between parties.
Ever since it became an opposition party, the KMT has done little but whine. Their stoking of people's emotions and prejudices and calling on supporters to participate in a signature drive to seek Chen's ouster all reek of Chinese Communist Party-style tactics: Recall how China's Cultural Revolution began.
Black-clad gangsters attended recent KMT-led rallies in droves. The KMT is notorious for its close connections with gangs: Recall the 1984 slaying in California of writer Henry Liu (
The party is calling on its gangster brethren once again: This time, to intimidate the ruling party. Fortunately, Taiwan has already made the leap to democracy, and the ghosts of Chiang Kai-shek (
Cao Changqing is a freelance journalist based in the US.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS