Although conflict between the pan-greens and pan-blues has eased since the legislature voted down the presidential recall motion, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) still must solve their political difficulties, and the nation still finds itself in dire straits politically. If the government does not move forward, the DPP will be punished in the year-end mayoral elections in Taipei and Kaohsiung, and in the legislative elections next year.
A closer look shows that the nation's democracy is fraught with problems that will not be resolved simply by Chen stepping down or the DPP losing power. These problems will remain until the next president takes office, and maybe after that. They include the democratic system of the central government, presidential competence and decision-making, political chaos in the legislature and the health of our democracy.
An evaluation of the prospects for the nation's democracy based on these core issues does not lead to much optimism. It will take a long time to establish an effective democratic system. In addition, the unclear definitions of presidential responsibilities and power have led to inefficiencies in all administrative agencies.
Chen's use of power is the main reason for the government's problems. Although Chen decided to delegate power to Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌), the results of this have yet to be seen because Chen is still holding the ball. This is a matter of structure; that is, it is essential to reform the central government and determine whether it is a presidential or a Cabinet system.
Democratic reform at the center must be achieved through constitutional amendments. But as long as the DPP is in power, these are unlikely unless the party can propose amendments that transcend the independence-unification dispute and provide room for rational discussion of democracy at the central level and consensus across party lines.
Another reason for pessimism is that if the KMT were to regain power in 2008, it would still be difficult to restructure democratic policies at the central level.
The recall effort brought to light serious shortcomings in Chen's ability to govern and his decision-making. However, what truly concerns the public is not that Chen has faults, but that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
It is difficult to predict the outcome of the 2008 presidential election, but Ma probably has the best chance of winning, despite the recall motion debacle. For more astute observers, however, the recall campaign exposed Ma's lack of leadership and severe flaws in decision-making.
Ma backtracked in his approach to the recall attempt due to pressure from hardcore pan-blue elements, including People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜). Ma was unable to firmly state his stance and rally the more elite elements of his party.
The campaign was hatched by rabble rousers who lacked the savvy to instill their cause with true persuasive force. The pan-blues' courting of former DPP chairman Lin I-hsiung (林義雄) and the National Policy Advisory Committee, as well as attempts to turn pan-green legislators against Chen, were fruitless and exposed the pan-blues' immaturity.
The recall motion was doomed to failure, and the way Ma handled the matter offers a clue to how he might run the nation. This is especially worrying since the key to being a capable president lies not in wielding power like a dictator, but in establishing effective decision-making.
Chen has failed to establish these mechanisms; however, Ma has failed to demonstrate -- both as Taipei mayor and KMT chairman -- that he is more able to do so.
Of all the political bodies that make up the government, the legislature is the least trusted or respected. Polls indicate that the legislature falls below even Chen on these measures. The KMT has found a home in this distrusted political environment, using the body as a base for sabotaging executive governance; this tactic represents the main obstacle to democratic development.
Moreover, the halving of legislative seats for the next elections makes matters worse because the same amount of power will be shared by fewer legislators -- more power per legislator.
Another factor to consider is that electoral districts will be redrawn to reflect the new legislature. The KMT will also likely secure an even bigger majority. That in turn will result in the continued stalling of democratic reform. The DPP, after all, lacks the power to push for reform, while the KMT basically refuses to entertain anything proposed by the DPP.
Finally, the opposition and ruling parties, and the general public, lack a certain democratic fervor; this poses the greatest obstacle to democratic development. The recall campaign demonstrated that too many people, especially those in the media, believe in the "rule of virtue."
These people do not distinguish between morality and the rule of law. Viewing an opponent as an enemy and then attacking that person is not an act of democracy -- it's just a street fight.
Moreover, when one picks a fight with one's enemies, they often end up looking like victims and martyrs, no matter how immoral they are.
The phenomenon of "star" political commentators has become a mainstream symbol for justice, when in fact it is far removed from democratic principles. These commentators' monopoly on public dialogue violates the spirit of democracy. Elevating the quality of the democratic system is the most challenging task of democratization; the emerging culture of star commentators and allegations makes an already arduous task even more difficult.
These formidable problems are not bumps on the road to a more mature democracy that can be ironed out in three to five years. These problems will not be solved by installing a new leader in the Presidential Office either. We need to devote more time and energy to promoting democratic reform.
Chiu Hei-yuan is a research fellow at the Institute of Sociology at Academia Sinica.
Translated by Daniel Cheng and Max Hirsch
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS