The results of the legislative elections on Jan. 12 showed a major discrepancy between the number of seats and the percentages of votes for the different parties. Such discrepancies are not uncommon in "winner take all" single seat district systems, such as in the UK.
While the single-seat district system increases the accountability of the legislators to the local electorate, it also opens the door to "little kingdoms" in which a legislator virtually has absolute power, and can perpetuate his or her hold on the position through money and connections.
The single-seat system also contains a flaw in the principle of democracy, since the people in a district whose candidate was not elected may feel that their views are not represented in the legislature.
In the 2005 restructuring, the negotiators adopted a mixed system, in which 73 of the 113 seats were district seats, six for Aboriginal groups and 34 seats were elected through an overall proportional distribution of party votes from a second ballot.
As we have seen from the results of the elections, this has not solved the problem and indeed illustrates the flaws in the new system even more clearly.
Should it seek to fine-tune its electoral system, Taiwan may want to look at the Dutch system, which is a proportional system, but with a twist.
In the Netherlands, the political parties first develop a list of candidates -- through an internal democratic system that represents a mixture of US party caucuses and primaries.
The list is headed by a prominent party member, but -- and this is essential -- also has candidates who represent the different parts of the country.
In that way, if the particular party has done its homework, the party list represents a balance from the different regions and even factions within the party.
On voting day, the voters generally mark the box of the person who heads the list and the seats are allocated on the basis of the total percentage of the vote the party receives.
In that way, there is no discrepancy between the percentage of the vote and seats allocated to any particular party.
The "twist" is that voters have an alternative to giving what is essentially a "party vote" to the person who heads a particular party's list.
Voters may instead choose to make a "preference vote" by specifically naming a candidate lower on the party list, and if that candidate receives more preference votes than the total number of valid party votes divided by the total number of seats for that party, he or she is elected.
Local favorites can therefore still be elected, even if the party primary might not have put them in a high position on their list.
The Dutch system creates the possibility for new entrants and smaller parties to win seats, enhancing democracy because new and different voices are heard.
It also necessitates procedures in the legislature whereby individual legislators cannot speak on all issues. Instead, parties appoint spokespersons on each major topic so that debate in the legislature is focused and represents the party position.
It also ensures the debates don't go on endlessly.
Some countries -- including Taiwan -- do also have a minimum percentage of votes a party must receive in order to have seats in the legislature.
As seen in the results of the Jan. 12 elections, the 5 percent threshold is probably too high and might need to be lowered to about 3 percent if other voices are to be heard.
Remember, Taiwan's democracy is still a work in progress. It is up to Taiwanese to really make it work.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.
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