The much anticipated and closely watched special municipality elections took place on Saturday. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) took three of the five mayoral seats. It kept hold, albeit tenuously, on Taipei City and Taipei County (soon to be renamed Sinbei City) and Taichung City and county (soon to be Greater Taichung). However, the KMT was not able to expand its control of local government.
On the other hand, although the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) failed to take any additional mayoral positions, merely consolidating its control over Tainan and Kaohsiung, it did make gains in its overall share of the vote. In fact, it received more votes than the KMT. In addition, the margin of the DPP’s defeat in Sinbei and Taichung was quite narrow.
The people, in their collective wisdom, have spoken, and politicians and pundits alike will have to accept the results. Both major parties have cause to celebrate, just as they have reason to worry, and although it is likely both will claim victory, this must come with a note of caution. If this election tells them anything, it should be that there is still much work to do.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is also chairman of the KMT. He, more than anyone else, needs to scrutinize the election results and try to divine what the people are saying. He can take from his party’s performance the fact that he has passed, by the skin of his teeth, a midterm electoral test. He can probably also take succor from the news that his party successfully defended Taipei.
However, with a turnout of over 50 percent, voters have shown that they harbor doubts about the government. Ma got 7.65 million votes — 58 percent of the total — in the presidential election less than three years ago, but Saturday’s vote count suggests that his support is eroding. This trend was already evident in two county commissioner elections last year and can only be blamed on the performance of Ma and his administration. One must conclude that the electorate’s trust in him is slipping.
It may not be possible for a president to make everyone happy all the time, but he does need to represent the country’s overall interests. This is absolutely fundamental. Ma, however, has repeatedly put his duties as KMT chairman ahead of his responsibilities as president of the nation. He views the DPP as an enemy rather than just a rival. In healthy democracies, presidents should facilitate dialogue between the ruling and opposition parties. Ma, however, prefers to hobnob with the Chinese Communist Party whilst badmouthing the opposition in his own country.
The electorate has shown its displeasure with Ma by casting so many votes for the opposition. He would be unwise to continue governing the country with an ideological aim of “eventual unification” with China. Instead, he should step back and reflect on the political price he has paid for the surge in cross-strait relations that he has overseen during his first two years in office.
On the other hand, he may choose to think that the result of this election confirms the correctness of his policies. In that case, his quest for re-election as president will be a thorny one.
The dimming of Ma’s halo in the eyes of the public also reflects the economic hardships suffered by ordinary people, whose dissatisfaction was expressed in the vote count. The Ma administration has been touting positive economic indicators to confirm its achievements. Although this year’s economic figures have given the government a boost, next year’s may not be so good. More importantly, people’s perception of their economic quality of life keeps getting worse. If this trend continues, the government will find it harder and harder to bluff its way to election victory by quoting statistics.
As to the DPP, although its strategy of striving for victory in three cities, struggling for a fourth and hoping to win in all five did not work out as well as hoped, it won almost half the votes cast at 49.87 percent, surpassing the KMT’s 44.54 percent. The DPP’s share of the vote has grown with each election since the legislative contest of 2008. More than that, this municipal election has seen the two main parties’ vote counts cross over, the DPP’s gains coinciding with the KMT’s losses. If the DPP can seriously reflect on its election performance and stay united, its prospects for the next legislative and presidential elections are bright.
It stands to reason that Taiwan’s democracy becomes more deeply rooted and mature with each passing election. Of course, those who get elected are expected to make good on their campaign promises. Aside from that, problems both old and new thrown up in the course of this election campaign call for reflection and reform.
Vote buying is a blight on Taiwan’s democracy. While some candidates believe that political mastery is unnecessary and paying for votes will do the trick, there are also those among the public who are willing to demean themselves by selling their votes. Saturday’s elections were no exception in this regard. Election graft is an old problem that can only be dealt with by thorough and impartial judicial investigation and prosecution. At the same time, the KMT must divest itself of its remaining party assets, and Taiwan’s political culture must be further transformed.
The shooting of KMT politician Sean Lien (連勝文) in Taipei County the evening before the vote shocked the nation. As soon as the shooting took place, several politicians and media tried to play it up in an effort to influence the election. It is hard to say at this point whether the shooting was an incident arising from a dispute between individuals, or a political one related to the elections.
Before the evening was out, the National Police Agency expressed the view that Lien’s assailant had mistaken him for someone else and that the shooting was not political. Nevertheless, some media rushed to draw connections between the shooting and the election, implying that the attack was the work of the KMT’s rivals. They called it “a stain on our democracy” and even fanned the flames by calling on people to “counter the bullet by casting a ballot.”
In contrast, overseas media treated the incident more cautiously. Reuters news agency told its readers: “Media reports said the man was a member of a gang and seemed to have no political motive.” The New York Times said: “The motive for the shooting was unknown,” and The Associated Press quoted a local television report as saying a suspect apprehended by the police was nicknamed Horse Face, suggesting a link to Taiwanese criminal gangs.
It is hard to say what influence, if any, the shooting had on the vote. What is clear, however, is that manipulation by politically motivated media who rushed to judge the case before the facts were known is unjust and alien to the function of a healthy democracy.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER AND JULIAN CLEGG
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