The transformation from rule by man to the rule of law and institutionalism lies at the heart of the democratization process, which is implemented by building a peaceful, just and competitive institutional arrangement through elections. These institutions select the national leader and handle national political affairs. The building of such an institutional arrangement requires coordination with various institutions in civil society, such as the freedoms of thought, expression and the press, interest and lobbying groups, a market economy and so on.
The most important institution, which functions as an intermediary between society and politics, is, without a doubt, a political system with two or more effectively independent and mutually counterbalancing political parties. In a democracy, this party system is intimately related to the government's executive, legislative and judicial system, although democratic principles say that the parties and the government should be clearly separated. The two systems fill different functions, and the separation of party and government is the normal state in a democracy.
There are "soft" and "hard" political parties. Most democratic countries, whether they have a presidential, semi-presidential or parliamentary system, have soft political parties. This means that parties are "election machines," that the president or prime minister does not double as chairman of his party (although he is perceived as its leader), and that he does not manage party affairs. Very few democratic countries have a system of hard political parties.
Before the presidential election in 2000, Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) made a solemn pledge that he would not let the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) direct government affairs as the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) had done. After his election, however, he has led a minority government, and opposition between party and Cabinet has been common.
To assure coordination between the Presidential Office, the Cabinet and the party, he decided two years later to double as party chairman in order to guarantee that "party and government walked in step with each other." He thus shouldered the repsonsibility of coordinating contacts between DPP factions, between the Cabinet and the legislature, and between DPP and the Cabinet. This made coordination of internal party affairs much more efficient, and dissenting voices within the party became fewer. Another result was that Chen himself often became the target of criticism, whether as part of internal party struggles or inter-party struggles, often placing him at the center of conflict.
Two years ago, I was fiercely opposed to Chen's doubling as president and party chairman based on fundamental democratic principles. Today, the party is not directing government affairs, and Chen has succeeded in being re-elected, but I am still opposed to synchronizing party and government, and to Chen's doubling as DPP party chairman.
I understand that Chen has asked each DPP faction to propose an amendement to the party charter changing the regulation stipulating that the president shall double as party chairman by adding "or the president shall designate a deputy party chairman to act as party chairman." If passed by the DPP's National Congress in July, I hope that Chen will set a precedent by stepping down as party chairman. According to DPP party regulations, Chen can appoint three deputy chairmen, but as a result of past intra-party conflict over this regulation, he has never used that power. If, however, the amendment is passed, he is certain to do so as part of planning for the future.
Chen no longer suffers the pressure to win re-election, and he cares for his place in history. Only by giving up the DPP chairmanship can he function as a mediator, transcending partisanship, to start up the constitutional reform project. He recently asked party and government officials to withdraw from party factional operations, and now he is prepared to step down as party chairman. This move is intended to build party politics grounded on a solid democratic foundation, and that is commendable. I believe, however, that his current reforms are a step too slow.
DPP Legislator Lin Chuo-shui (
The secretary of the DPP's Welfare State (福利國) faction, Lin Yu-sheng (林育生), says the amendment, centered on the will of the president and party chairman, is no trivial matter. He believes it should give more formal recognition to the suggestions of party members, and predicts that once the amendment has been passed, the party may be reduced to an election machine, and no longer be responsible for decision making or communication between party and government. He also says it would be better to return to a system where the party chairman is directly elected by party members.
History is watching. Although Chen is dismantling the party faction system out of a deeply held conviction, it will be difficult. But if he wants to build long-lasting democratic party politics, separating the party from government and stepping down as party chairman is a very good beginning.
Chiou Chwei-liang is a visiting professor at Tamkang University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
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