The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) have been trading blows over the four hotly contested referendums to be held on Saturday. Both parties regard the referendums as a battle that neither can afford to lose.
Compared with the ruling DPP, the KMT is on the offensive, and is short on power and resources. The most it can do is to fight with words. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) and former KMT chairman Johnny Chiang (江啟臣) have defined this referendum vote as a “citizens’ war,” pitting ordinary Taiwanese against the government.
“The DPP is deploying its powers and endless resources against Taiwanese,” Chu said, while Chiang said: “If the four referendums fail to pass, it will be the failure of the public.”
While the KMT has molded the referendum into a reflection of public will, it has bypassed the definition of referendums. The right to propose referendums is not the preserve of citizens. The Executive Yuan, the Legislative Yuan and the president are eligible to propose referendums.
For example, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) proposed the 2008 referendum on UN membership for Taiwan.
To characterize the referendums as “citizens vs the government” is, of course, a political tactic, in which “the citizens” are an abstract entity, not a homogeneous group.
With different classes, levels of welfare, communities, values and ideologies involved, the KMT cannot say that it represents “the citizens.”
Political science academic Gordon Smith once characterized referendums into two groups: “controlled vs uncontrolled” and “pro-hegemonic vs anti-hegemonic.”
If the timing and holding of the referendum vote is controlled by the government, then it is considered “controlled” and “pro-hegemonic.” If it is enacted on the initiative of citizens, it is “uncontrolled” and “anti-hegemonic.”
Smith’s theory and research have proved that the former favors the ruling party, while the latter favors the opposition. In Taiwan’s case, the four referendums actually work against the DPP.
While President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) proposed a “head-on battle” at the DPP’s National Convention, the KMT has been lambasting the DPP for “mixing party and state.”
However, the KMT’s accusation could have only existed in the party-state system adopted by the KMT back when there was “one party, one principle, one leader,” and leaves no room for “alternative parties or internal factions.”
It is impossible for the government to combine party and state in democratic Taiwan. As a democratic government runs on party politics, it is perfectly acceptable for the government to push the ruling party’s policies.
Then there is the matter of administrative neutrality. The four referendum initiators held a news conference, excoriating the DPP administration for contravening administrative neutrality with regards to the referendums.
“The ruling Democratic Progressive Party is exploiting administrative resources and the state apparatus for partisan gains, forcing civil servants to speak up for it,” Chiang said.
KMT Legislator Chen Hsueh-shen (陳雪生) is withholding the budget review in protest against the issue.
If we apply the theory of political economist Joseph Schumpeter, democratic politics is about campaigning for votes to win the right to rule.
In other words, pushing for one’s policies after obtaining a mandate has nothing to do with neutrality. As the four referendums are related to the DPP’s policies, it is only fitting that the DPP deploys the “state apparatus” to promote its policies in a democratic regime.
While the four referendums are “anti-hegemonic” for the KMT, they are about maintenance of hegemony for the DPP.
There is no breach of neutrality when the DPP is promoting the policies of the Tsai administration, an action that perfectly fits into the parameters of responsible politics and party politics.
Taiwanese Public Opinion Foundation chairman Michael You (游盈隆) said the whole DPP was “acting in connivance,” while Representative to Germany Shieh Jhy-wey (謝志偉) said the party was “acting in solidarity.”
No matter what, there is no denying that the DPP is doing all it can to contest an “uncontrolled referendum.”
Chin Heng-wei is a political commentator.
Translated by Rita Wang
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS