Let us assume for a moment that when the combined presidential and legislative elections are held in January, the popular vote is divided. In other words, that the presidency and control of the legislature are held by different political parties. In such a situation, both the president and the legislature would represent the will of a majority of voters and the question would become which of the two has the power to run the country?
Some experts say that Taiwan could learn from the experience of cohabitation of power in France, where the president must draw his Cabinet from the majority party in the National Assembly. A Taiwanese president balanced by a legislature controlled by a political party other than his or her own, the experts say, would only retain control over cross-strait relations, foreign affairs and defense policy.
However, French presidents have the power to dissolve parliament. Former French president Francois Mitterrand dismissed the National Assembly and called new elections immediately after both his presidential election wins, taking advantage of his political honeymoon to obtain a parliamentary majority and garner sufficient political clout to rule the county.
However, a period of cohabitation, where the president and the prime minister came from opposing parties, resulted from the parliamentary election held at end of the five-year parliamentary term, which does not run in step with the presidential term. The opposition secured a parliamentary majority, forcing Mitterrand to accept cohabitation from 1986 to 1988.
Mitterrand suffered the same fate during his second term. Although his party won the legislative election he called after his second presidential victory in 1988, he lost that majority in the 1993 parliamentary election, setting off a second period of cohabitation, which lasted until 1995 when Jacques Chirac was elected president.
Chirac had full command of the government after his election in 1995, but after dissolving parliament in 1997, Chirac’s party lost the following election by a landslide, forcing him into a cohabitation that was to last until the end of his first term in 2002.
In other words, French voters have tended to first elect a powerful president, before showing their dissatisfaction with the president’s performance at the ballot box and choosing to balance his or her power through a period of cohabitation.
The seat of power in France is clear and undisputed. Two institutions representing the will of the public are produced at different times and so it is only natural that the more recent majority opinion should replace the older majority opinion.
The term of the French presidency was reduced to five years in a constitutional referendum in 2000.
Nonetheless, the term of the National Assembly was also modified to expire on the third Tuesday in June of the fifth year following its election, so that the legislative elections would be held after the presidential election — in recent years, the first round of the French presidential election has taken place around late April and the second round around early May, with the president-elect assuming office in mid-May. This way, the ambiguity surrounding the ruling power was eliminated.
The Central Election Committee has set up a vicious constitutional trap for the people of Taiwan. By combining the elections, it has created a situation that will inevitably place both the public and Taiwanese democracy in a quandary.
When the committee decided to merge the two elections, did it also come up with a solution for a potential constitutional crisis?
Steve Wang is an advisory committee member of Taiwan Thinktank
TRANSLATED BY LIU YI-HSIN
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS