As the presidential election draws closer, it is odd that a once-autocratic political party with blood on its hands and forced out of power could win favor and find itself compatible with democracy.
Taiwan is a unique nation for allowing such a thing to happen. After witnessing the first transition of power in 2000, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) not only “exiled” former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and regained power in 2008, its presidential ticket seems to have not fallen far behind the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) presidential ticket in polling this time.
It is tragic that Taiwan’s democratic system does not possess a healthy multiparty system; that the KMT has become perhaps the only possibility for a transition of power. Its historical baggage has pro-China written into its DNA, from Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) “recovery of mainland China,” to endorsement of China’s so-called “1992 consensus,” to talk of a cross-strait service and trade agreement: The KMT has never wavered in its pro-China stance to maximize its interests.
It is unhealthy that the only choice is between a pro-Taiwan party and a party capitalizing on China. Although the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and its chairman and presidential candidate, Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), have risen to power due to antipathy toward the DPP-KMT rivalry, Ko’s evasiveness on cross-strait policy and his “blue-white alliance” proposal has made the TPP a second KMT — seeking dividends under the false promise of cross-strait peace.
This is the biggest predicament for Taiwanese: an inability to agree with the KMT’s pro-China stance to sell out Taiwan, yet not given a second pro-Taiwan political party to endorse. As a result, the DPP is often labeled as turning Taiwan into a one-party system, and always faces obstruction in its affairs with China.
Taiwan’s democracy needs three things:
First is solidarity against a common enemy. Taiwanese must vote for a presidential candidate and party that seek to safeguard democracy and freedom, especially one that vows to establish close ties with other democraties and bolster national defense. A party that still believes in the ficticious “1992 consensus” is not an option. The collapse of the blue-white alliance plans and Hon Hai Precision Industry Co founder Terry Gou’s (郭台銘) decision to bow out of the race should have shown everyone how influential Chinese interference is. Belief in a “one China” peace treaty or restarting the cross-strait service trade agreement is delusional.
Second is the promotion of social benefits and policies. As internal affairs and social issues have been a chink in the DPP’s armor as opposed to its success in diplomacy, it would have to keep introducing plans such as private university subsidies, rental subsidies or minimum wage legislation. It would have to reinforce social security and design an elderly-friendly environment. It would be hard-pressed to implement immediate reform, but its presidential candidate should seek cooperation with civil groups and academics to achieve it.
Third is to strive for a healthy multiparty system.
The priority is how to keep Taiwan’s democracy from corruption when there is not an alternative pro-Taiwan party. So far, the best option is to empower a pro-Taiwan party, while civil groups play overseer. In this way, they could supervise the DPP in domestic terms while uniting with the DPP to counter China in diplomacy. Only by allowing pro-Taiwan parties and civil groups to supervise could a second pro-Taiwan political party be nurtured to bring about a healthy political system. Establishing a fair and impartial system for newly developed parties would be a good start.
Every Taiwanese has the duty to find a resolution to Taiwan’s predicament. It is up to them to vote for a pro-Taiwan party and ensure that it has the momentum and incentive to keep improving. Taiwanese owe it to themselves, to their predecessors who fought for its democracy and to the world.
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS