The notion of a "government for all the people" (
The inherent problems of the constitutional structure, together with bad communication between the president and the premier, and the premier and the ruling DPP, caused this intrinsically fragile government to degenerate. The controversies over the legislative review of the national budget and the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant posed some of the greatest challenges to the Chen-Tang administration (
Apart from the consideration of Tang Fei's (唐飛) health, it seems almost impossible to exclude other political factors involved in his resignation Tuesday night. With next year's legislative elections looming ever larger, it is natural for the DPP to be worried. The recent criticisms of Tang by DPP Secretary-general Wu Nai-jen (吳乃仁) were understandable.
As the "government for all the people" moves toward a dead end, what sort of strategy should Chen adopt? It seems that his options are limited to two scenarios -- either to establish a coalition government (聯合政府) with other political parties or a minority government (少數政府) led by the DPP. The appointment of Vice Premier Chang Chung-hsiung (張俊雄) as the new premier means the formation of the latter. And there are reasons to believe that Chen and the DPP prefer a minority government over a majority government largely due to electoral considerations.
Conventional wisdom has it that minority governments are generally formed as a result of constraints, limited choice, failure in negotiations and other circumstances that are often tied to the negotiation process itself. In other words, minority governments have rarely received high marks for either stability or effectiveness. Minority cabinets are conventionally portrayed as governments of low effectiveness.
Research suggests, however, that minority cabinets are a surprisingly common occurrence in a number of parliamentary democracies. They account for about one-third of all postwar governments. The difference between majority and minority governments converges with an important distinction often existing between partisan governments -- the distinction between single-party and coalition governments.
It is commonly assumed that single-party and coalition governments are formed under distinct conditions: single-party governments in majority situations (ie, when one party alone controls a majority of the legislators), and coalition governments in minority situations, when no party is so advantaged. This is why political scientists have generally shown much greater interest in coalition governments than in either single-party majority or minority governments.
In theory, minority govern-ments violate the expectation that executive and legislative coalitions are identical. Even when the distinction between these two coalitions is recognized, it is difficult to see what would cause them to differ. Why would any party agree to support the government legislatively if it gets no portfolios in exchange?
Whether or not minority governments can be as easily dismissed as nonpartisan administrations remains debatable. Minority governments are nowhere near as rare as nonpartisan administrations. Substantial conflict, extremism, or polarization are the principal causes of the formation of minority governments. The more polarized or divided the party system, the greater the likelihood of minority governments.
The less willing parties are to bargain, the more likely they will end up with a minority government. This is especially likely when polarization coincides with factionalism and systemic party political instability. In some cases, the formation of a minority government represents intense legislative conflict. The parties are too deeply divided to agree on a coalition capable of positive action.Taiwan's situation displays precisely these characteristics.
Yet the question remains, if minority governments are such poor performers, why are they so common? And if these cabinets are so frequently formed, why have there been so few crises of democracy in postwar Europe?
The point is that government performance is a matter not only of how effectively, but also of in what way cabinets attain legislative coalitions at all. In contrast to most majority governments, the process by which a minority cabinet is formed does not necessarily explain how it stays in power.
If we are to understand minority governments, we need to grasp the mechanisms by which these cabinets secure whatever viability and effectiveness they can. It involves mainly the extent to which the minority government is able to coordinate with its counterparts in the legislature to win a de facto majority.
To prove that it can rule by itself, some DPP members have shown greater interest in the formation of a DPP-led minority government. The best timing would have been the end of this year or the beginning of next year. Many DPP heavyweights, mostly from the leading New Tide faction, have urged the party to form a stronger Cabinet as soon as possible in order to win next year's elections. The latest development has largely followed this direction and that is why it has thus far won the support of many DPP members.
In spite of factional interests, a minority government may serve as a better, if only a transitional, scenario for Chen's administration. For one thing, the DPP Cabinet still has about a year to carry out its policies and demonstrate its capabilities to the people. Moreover, if the DPP wins over half the seats at the next legislative election, or at least becomes a near-majority party, this will increase the possibility of the ruling party consolidating its position. If not, we will witness a further development in party realignment in Taiwan.
Liu Kuan-teh is a political commentator based in Taipei.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with