The results of the first elections under the new single-member district, two-vote system grant the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) new legislative powers that should unnerve advocates of Taiwanese democracy.
A combination of structural change, poor campaign strategy by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and growing dissatisfaction from voters in nominally safe DPP seats killed the party's hopes to protect the legislature from a two-thirds majority for the KMT.
The remaining two months of President Chen Shui-bian's (
Changes to the electoral system did not benefit the DPP at all, instead proving a boon to the KMT with its superior organizational skills on the ground.
The interesting thing is that the DPP achieved a higher proportion of the district vote (38.17 percent) than in legislative elections four years ago, when it received 35.7 percent of the vote. Its party proportional vote was also marginally higher -- at 36.91 percent. The main reasons for the KMT's landslide victory are instead the distributive nature of the new system and how it forced KMT-aligned local factions to cooperate with one another.
Even so, the DPP's primaries were flawed, leading to an inability to appoint appropriate and able candidates. It failed to take into account changes in the single-member system, such as this: To be elected, a candidate is now required to win a much larger number of votes -- effectively 50 percent in many cases -- rather than a larger minority of votes.
The tradition that the party chairman should lead the campaign and mobilize support meant that DPP candidates could not be heard as individuals in their constituencies. Add to this the fact that DPP candidates do not have the same grassroots networks as KMT candidates, and the result was several capable candidates losing by small margins.
With Chen's resignation as DPP chairman, the party is now set for an ugly post mortem as Premier Chang Chun-hsiung (
After winning the 2000 presidential election, the DPP was doing reasonably well in the face of an increasingly hostile legislature, until things took a turn for the worse with its avoidable 2004 legislative election loss, ensuring that the KMT would have the space and time to recover confidence after the inept leadership of chairman Lien Chan (
The next 70 days will show if Hsieh is able to invoke the much-vaunted "pendulum effect" and save the DPP -- and Taiwan -- from a situation in which a party that privileges power and cynicism over democracy and propriety has complete control of the legislature and the executive.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS