As the election campaign heats up, we can see the predicaments facing the blue and green camps in terms of strategy and implementation.
For the blue camp, the lack of a quick response mechanism and the poor ability to manipulate issues are merely superficial problems. Its most serious and fundamental problem is the lack of a consistent attitude and discourse on core issues. Simply put, does the blue camp have consistent and clear views on core campaign issues -- be they on the cross-strait front or the economic front? Once they hammer out these viewpoints, other problems can be readily solved. Otherwise, the blue camp will fall into a predicament in which it can only react to its opponent's moves as they come, being always passive and slow to respond.
This has already happened over three issues: the "one-country on each side" dictum, referendums and the creation of a new constitution. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was the first to present these issues. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) have always opposed the DPP's stance in a formulaic response, and then revised their positions after discovering a poorer-than-expected response from the public.
If the KMT and PFP do not have a complete set of views on these issues, then they will be unable to break out of this cycle even if they have a better rapid-response force. One concrete manifestation of this is the disparate statements often made by KMT-PFP representatives in media comments.
Though in a passive position on these issues, the KMT and PFP still have room to develop their platforms and are not necessarily at a disadvantage. For example, regarding "one country on each side," the KMT and PFP could have quickly defined it as a description of the status quo, with the People's Republic of China on one side and the Republic of China on the other. They could have claimed that there was no conflicting point between the two camps -- if there was one, that would mean that the DPP's "other side" is the Republic of Taiwan.
On the referendum issue, the KMT and PFP should have supported the spirit and conduct of referendums while stating that referendums should not obstruct economic development, that there should be complementary accountability measures and that referendums should be held after legislation.
As for creating a new constitution, they could have countered the green camp's plan by proposing constitutional amendments. They could also present a complete version of constitutional amendments to prove their sincerity and ability to carry out reforms. There is also a consistent pattern to these approaches -- seeking differences amid similarities. They must agree with their opponent's views on the general direction of localization and reforms, while using differences beneficial to themselves as a keynote in their debate. Only then will they not be painted as anti-reform; only then will they have an opportunity to pull the campaign back to economic issues.
Being in a relatively disadvantageous position, the DPP has raised many major issues to try to strike at the existing structure. On the surface, such an aggressive approach may create an appearance of leading the debate, but at the same time it also carries a relatively higher risk of making mistakes. The fact that the DPP has been able to take this approach has very much to do with the KMT-PFP camp's passive responses. For example, the DPP made a major mistake in its campaign when it used a spurious cut-and-paste approach in a TV commercial to insinuate that Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was "abandoning Taiwan and toadying up to China." But the KMT-PFP camp let go of this opportunity. Compare this to the DPP's vehement response to the PFP Legislator Kao Ming-chien (高明見) incident [in which Kao was accused of collaborating with Beijing to create an impression that China was helping Taiwan during the SARS crisis]. No wonder the D PP has so much room to make mistakes and try out different tactics one after another.
In a one-to-one campaign battle, however, it is highly questionable whether the green camp's tactic of raising ideological issues will win the election battle. After consolidating its basic voter base, the green camp must return to the middle way at a certain point. Only then can it possibly win the election. A key factor influencing this election campaign lies in whether the DPP will be able to smoothly return to the middle after moving to such extremes.
Another question is the accuracy of President Chen Shui-bian's (
At this stage of the campaign, the important point is what role it will play in the development of democracy in Taiwan, no matter whose tactics are superior and no matter which side wins. Do we have to invoke agitated, confrontational debates on national identity and the future of the Constitution during every election cycle and then spend four years after the election to heal the wounds and build consensus? Campaign strategies have been reported extensively in horse-race-style discussions, but there has been no room for proposing and debating policies. Changes in the support rates have become important points to keep track of, but no one has been concerned about exactly which issues are of immediate concern to the electorate.
As campaign emotions run high, we should pause and think about whether this election will be one for choosing a country or a constitution, or for choosing to change Taiwan's political culture.
Emile Sheng is an associate professor of political science at Soochow University.
Translated by Francis Huang
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations