A successful revolutionary is not necessarily a good politician, but a successful reformer must be a first-class politician. This is because a revolutionary's skill is in mobilization of social forces whereas a reformer has to know how to manipulate them and control social change. Placing the responsibility of reforming the KMT on Lien Chan (
There has been an avalanche of slogans for reform, showing that everyone has ideals to promote. Too bad that nobody seems to know how, in practical terms, to do this. There is a cacophony of opinion but not the slightest sign of a viable plan. Chaos is the natural result of this. Perhaps the only practical plan that anyone has suggested -- and how seriously it was meant is open to question -- is that Lien Chan should run for the legislature, since that is, after all, where the KMT's power base now is.
Lien might have ran in two presidential elections, but each time he looked more like a spectator than a campaigner. When he did actually go on the stump he looked more like an unwilling student being driven into the classroom by his teacher. He often looked inattentive and, in fact, appeared relieved the night of his defeat. He has never truly campaigned for himself in his entire life. It would surely be a pleasant surprise for everyone if he would actually run in an election like other political leaders.
In the past, the members of the KMT leadership never participated in elections. As a result it was impossible to say that they had a popular mandate for their exercise of power. They also deliberately belittled the importance of popularly elected organs as a way of imposing a form of top-down rule. As a result, the KMT leadership elite was comprised of professional bureaucrats who were nurtured and pampered. They may have had PhD degrees and may have been qualified to teach at universities, but they lacked the most important component of any political democracy -- popular support. Government for them therefore became an almost academic exercise in political and economic theory,rather than the more down to earth business of giving the people what they needed or wanted.
In contrast, the DPP leadership came from grassroots mass movements. Everyone has abundant election experience. And this difference between the leaderships of the two parties has shown itself in the aftermath of the March 18 election. Had the DPP lost, it would simply have shrugged its shoulders, perhaps rethought its policy, and vowed to do better next time. For the KMT, loss precipitated crisis. Its leaders, like the academics most of them are, thought that they had tenure on power. They were completely unprepared for the essential truth of democratic politics, that sometimes you lose.
Now they are all busy looking for teaching positions with universities or vacancies with foundations. However high-sounding their reasons for doing so might seem, the reality is that they want to retain their air conditioned offices rather than working for a living like other common folk. They dare not accept the challenge of another election.
How is the KMT to stage a comeback under these circumstances?
Lien has thrived on the tender nurturing of the KMT all his life. He exercises authority by delegating power and duties. On the surface, his approach appears reasonable. Actually, it is often simply his excuse for being lazy and lacking the courage to shoulder responsibility. All of Lien's good points seem to pale by comparison with James Soong's (
This means that if Lien is determined to reform the KMT, he must reform himself first. Not only must all the administrative officials run in local elections, but Lien himself, more than anyone else, must run in elections -- and really run, not just allow his name to be put forward for an "at large" seat on the KMT's party list. This would boost morale considerably.
But Lien's ability to reform himself looks doubtful. Why, for example, did he not attend the National Assembly session to personally supervise and direct the KMT-DPP joint effort to rein in the Assembly and freeze its elections.
In the past, if the DPP Chairman wanted to meet with the KMT Chairman, it would have been as difficult as an ordinary citizen meeting an emperor. Now that the KMT has become an opposition party, but it is still incapable of leaving behind its pompous grandeur. Old habits die hard. But the KMT has to realize that it is not a tenured mandarinate but a political party that can only achieve power through the ballot box. As such its leadership has to come down to earth and sees Taiwan the way their putative voters might see it.
The defeat of the KMT and its subsequent near-collapse helps its internal reform. When the KMT first evacuated to Taiwan, the biggest crooks in the party did not come along, either staying in China or fleeing to the US. This cleansing of the worst of the ancient regime allowed the KMT to greatly improve its performance in Taiwan. The situation is quite similar now. There is not much to be gained by staying with the party. As a result a lot of the worst elements have jumped ship to the Soong camp. Those left in the KMT therefore represent some of its better elements.
The People First Party (
Lien is someone who is easily underestimated, because, in view of his talents and education, he should not have performed this badly. Some people believe he is like Sadat of Egypt. In the shadow of a strongman, he achieved nothing. But once he became his own boss he shone. Now that Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) has stepped down will Lien be able to do the same?
Now Lien sits in the grand yet empty KMT headquarter all by himself. How bad he must feel and how much self-pity he must be facing as he stares at the Presidential Office across the street and the DPP prepares to move in.
Time then for Lien to walk out of his ivory tower, walk down to the NTU Hospital MRT station and take a train to Tamsui for a stewed crab supper. The road back to power for the KMT will only come from a better understanding of ordinary people. For starters, its leader might try to live like one.
Antonio Chiang is the Publisher and Editor in Chief of the Taipei Times.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
At the same time as more than 30 military aircraft were detected near Taiwan — one of the highest daily incursions this year — with some flying as close as 37 nautical miles (69kms) from the northern city of Keelung, China announced a limited and selected relaxation of restrictions on Taiwanese agricultural exports and tourism, upon receiving a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation led by KMT legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁). This demonstrates the two-faced gimmick of China’s “united front” strategy. Despite the strongest earthquake to hit the nation in 25 years striking Hualien on April 3, which caused
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past