The business of constitutional reform is very much colored by the political calculations of the major political parties, and the pan-blue and pan-green camps have been busy keeping each other in check. The so-called “third force,” riding on the crest of Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) electoral victory, presents itself as non-partisan, as if the third way were the only truly pure and simple force in politics remaining.
The point is politics would not be politics without political calculations. The problems arise when calculating the interests of individuals or political parties, and conforming to the thrust of majority public opinion. Whether the vision of an individual or the political tactics and strategy of a political party is successful, depends on the public and what it chooses to lend its support to.
Democratic politics has individuals competing against each other, and it also has groups fighting it out between themselves. Individuals have limited power and tend to join forces with others with similar ideas and viewpoints to form a political party. Small parties tend to be at a disadvantage in making their voice heard and will often seek out the major parties that share their ideas, merging with them or creating political alliances. How this power is negotiated, consolidated and allocated are all political calculations.
That the third force accuses the blue and green camps of engaging in political calculations is, in itself, a political calculation. It has selected not to join the two major parties and prefers instead to remain independent in its participation in constitutional amendments and elections, and to this end has to clamor against both the blue and the green camps to secure for itself a raison d’etre. It refuses to identify the merits or demerits of constitutional reform promoted by either party, and for this reason has become just as bad as the parties it complains about. It is all about political calculations designed to obtain power for itself.
The third force, which came into being in the wake of student and civic movements, characterized itself as part of their overall success, as all were seeking a shared goal, expressing the same objections, acting en masse. Now it is vying in the elections so it can get seats, and it cannot avoid having its own political calculations, combining its forces.
The third force’s position on reform had, in the past, been similar to, and was supportive of, that of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). There was no love lost between this force and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which it saw as a conservative force blocking reform in the legislature for decades. However, the third force is suddenly casting the DPP in the same light as the KMT, which is unfair and clearly done out of political calculations.
The DPP is now considering whether to stand aside in 13 electoral districts to give room for the third force, hoping this would help it prevent the KMT from keeping its majority in the legislature. Naturally, this is a political calculation placing the big picture before the DPP’s own immediate advantage. Is not defeating KMT candidates with the votes for the third force on top of the DPP’s organized vote just another political calculation?
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS