The third wave of democratization has focused attention on how ethnic factors influence democratic development. Throughout Taiwan's democratization process, ethnic division has been an irresistible structural incentive to politicians. Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) resounding defeat of Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) in the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) first direct chairmanship election on Saturday proved that it remains impossible to avoid political mobilization along ethnic lines.
After six months of haggling, the KMT remained unable to use its calls for greater democracy within the party to hide the difficulty it is having to bring about internal consolidation. During the campaign, the Ma camp half-intentionally played the corruption card to defame Wang and imply that he was under the negative influence of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝).
Together with sworn support from party elders and election monitoring, the two candidates grew more distant from each other, an indication of the shifting political map.
From the dangwai-period to the founding of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), democracy activists demanded that the Taiwanese should be the masters of their own fate. There were also two other ideological demands -- social reform and Taiwan's independence. Although these three approaches often reinforce each other, opposition politicians are still afraid of openly advocating ethnic division, while the slogan that the Taiwanese are voting for themselves isn't necessarily enough to mobilize voters.
The election of James Soong (宋楚瑜), a Mainlander, as provincial governor in 1994, proved that Taiwanese could vote across ethnic lines, and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) must have been upset when he lost his re-election bid for the Taipei mayorship because Mainlanders voted along ethnic lines rather than voicing their satisfaction with his achievements as mayor.
Wang, a master of networking, must have felt the same when he was unable to win the trust of KMT Mainlanders despite having Mainlander legislators campaign for him.
It would seem that the KMT, with its massive local Taiwanese membership, would be better positioned than the DPP to promote ethnic conciliation. Despite some small problems, the party chairmanship of Lee -- a Taiwanese -- was never at risk.
Differences of opinion between traditional and localization factions, however, gradually began to appear, in particular when faced by the DPP challenge, and Lee's localization policies were interpreted as "Taiwanization" policies and later swept out of the KMT, in the end leading to the founding of the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU).
The issue of whether or not the localization faction should be allowed to remain in the party has thus been brewing for a long time, and is not the result of external forces.
Ma's situation was very similar to Chen's -- without another trustworthy candidate for the chairmanship, there would have been no strong incentive to accept the burden. With his win, Ma guaranteed his nomination as the party's presidential candidate in 2008.
The question is why, unless Wang has expressed a wish to run for president, Ma wouldn't consider separating the party chairmanship and the presidency, and let Wang as party chairman campaign on Ma's behalf.
With a Wang-Ma presidential ticket out of the question, Wang will only be allowed to deal with blue-green rivalry in the legislature. No matter how hard able legislators work, they will never measure up to party workers or technocrats.
Shih Cheng-feng is a professor of public administration at Tamkang University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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