Not surprisingly, in the final countdown to the five special municipality elections on Nov. 27, the Taiwanese political scene has been full of negative campaigns, smear attacks, tears, partisan talk show finger-pointing and last-minute dirty tricks.
There is no doubt that the results of the elections will have implications for Taiwan’s political landscape. Nevertheless, what matters most is the extent to which party politics will evolve in the post-municipality-election era and what aspects of policy debate the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) decide to carry over to future legislative and presidential elections.
The number of seats and total votes that each party can garner will determine the winner and the loser. The ruling KMT and President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration need not only ensure the continuation of its governance of Taipei, the soon-to-be formed Sinbei City (the upgraded Taipei County) and Taichung, but also to avoid a further decline in votes on the heels of the three-in-one local elections in December last year and a series of legislative by-elections. The DPP hopes to win more seats in addition to the cities of Kaohsiung and Tainan, and outnumber the KMT in voter turnout.
Despite old campaign practices, the voters are witnessing the emergence of a new electoral culture and campaign style, which constitute a driving force for the maturation of Taiwan’s political culture. For example, DPP Taipei mayoral candidate Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) and Sinbei City mayoral candidate DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) have both introduced a non-traditional campaign style.
Faced with the reality that the KMT enjoys more vote leverage in both cities, Su and Tsai are downplaying partisan disputes and portraying their campaigns as a debate on governing capability.
If Su and Tsai are to win, it will signify a transformation in Taiwan’s political culture to an institutionalized party competition that centers more on rationality, moderation and bipartisanship. If Su or Tsai represent the DPP for the presidential election in 2012 or 2016, they will both have the legitimacy and the popularity to help shift the DPP’s image of a conventionally pro-independence force to that of a responsible and responsive political party that transcends the blue-green dichotomy in Taiwanese society. The debate over the party’s future cross-strait policy will also be based largely on pragmatism and take international expectations more into account.
If Su and Tsai stick to what they have advocated in the campaign and successfully convince the middle-of-the-road voters to endorse them, Taiwanese politics and the DPP will enter into a new phase of democratic transformation where the voters’ decision will be based more on leadership, governing capability and government efficiency than the issue of unification or independence.
As the ruling power, Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) has faced tremendous pressures from Su’s moderate and non-partisan campaign strategy. The KMT also faced a similar crisis in Sinbei City when Taipei County Commissioner Chou Hsi-wei (周錫瑋) was ranked as the worst governor in Taiwan. To secure a win, the KMT replaced Chou with former vice premier Eric Chu (朱立倫).
Even though the special municipality elections are local by nature, they have been portrayed as a midterm election for Ma. He and the KMT can not afford to lose either Taipei or Sinbei City because it will signify a vote of no confidence in Ma’s governance.
That’s the main strategic calculation behind the KMT’s planned parade tomorrow to rally hard-core KMT supporters. Given that most KMT supporters were reluctant to go out and vote for the party in the previous elections, Ma and the party’s leadership believe that the only effective way to beat Su is to utilize the KMT’s electoral -advantage in Taipei to increase the blue camp’s voter mobilization.
From a campaign perspective, is natural for the KMT to highlight the blue-green division in Taipei and Sinbei cities to prevent light-blue voters from supporting DPP candidates. Nevertheless, this serves to accelerate the deterioration of Taiwan’s political culture along partisan lines and ethnic divisions.
Since the KMT has controlled both the executive and legislative branches of government since Ma took office, the KMT should take full responsibility for the broadening of the partisan divide within Taiwanese society. Absolute governance means absolute responsibility. It is irresponsible to blame all the faults on the opposition DPP for what is in fact the KMT’s own poor governance.
After a decade of blue-green political wrestling, Taiwanese voters are craving new leaders with bold and realistic agendas, coupled with the skill to communicate and persuade. Most importantly, most voters expect a new mayor who can deliver on his or her campaign promises and refrain from using partisan divisions to distract from poor governance.
This is the true meaning of the special municipality elections.
Liu Shih-chung is a senior research fellow at the Taipei-based Taiwan Brain Trust.
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