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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers