After the overwhelming victory of Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
In 1987, a wave of democratic reform swept across Eastern Europe. Many communist regimes collapsed and were succeeded by democratic forces driven by dissidents that had been persecuted under the previous regimes. But a few years after the dissolution of communist authority, communist parties were able to reinvent themselves as center-left parties. Newly-formed parties calling themselves the Socialist Party or the Social Democratic Party even returned to power. They were able to do this because these parties were determined to reform themselves and rise from the ashes. Without such determination, these parties would not have survived.
These parties underwent reform on three fronts.
First, they completely discarded party-state thinking. Regardless of whether the peaceful transformation in 1989 was bottom-up or top-down, the Communist Party was able to adjust its policies to accommodate the wishes of its citizenry. It managed to revise the nation's constitution in a timely fashion, renounce its secure position as a single-party authoritarian regime and jettison redundant regulations. Also, the communist regimes firmly announced their determination to draw a clear line between themselves and their forerunners. Then they held elections in order to establish the healthy competition of party politics.
Second, the parties renamed themselves and changed their organizational structures. Apart from the Communist Party's continued use of that name in the Czech Republic, all other Eastern European communist parties renamed themselves the Socialist Party, the Social Democratic Party or the Left-Wing Democratic Party in order to completely wipe out the remnants of the Leninist regimes. Former communist states such as Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia and Lithuania made an all-out effort to carry out reforms, since this was the only way to take back power. Retaining the communist party name would have resulted in utter defeat -- the fate of the Communist Party in the Czech Republic.
Third, these parties handed over party assets to state coffers. The party-state assets were returned to the governments of Eastern European nations after the dissolution of their communist regimes. Given that most headquarters of the communist regimes were in the heart of the capital city, the democratization process led to the renewal of the cityscape, and the concentration of communist apparatchiks and their security forces dissipated.
The KMT and the former communist states of Eastern Europe all followed Leninist ideology. In the early period of the democratization process in Eastern European states, the Communist Party was committed to sweeping reforms in order to purge the nation of party-state ideology and forge a new constitution in step with the times. Only in this way could the former communist authorities return to power.
Given the successful transformation of former communist states in Eastern Europe, could the KMT follow in their paths? The KMT's fate in the 2008 presidential election depends on whether the party is able to implement the three kinds of reform listed above in a convincing manner.
Thomas Hung is a graduate research fellow at National Chengchi University's Institute of International Relations.
TRANSLATED BY LIN YA-TI
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS