What cost the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) the Dec. 3 elections? Recently, President Chen Shui-bian (
Premier Frank Hsieh (
Were Hsieh's comments correct? Well, they were not wrong, but they are only partially right. According to some news reports, DPP opinion polls conducted after the elections show that, based on the numbers of votes for the pan-blue and pan-green camps in last year's presidential election, 92 percent of pan-blue voters voted for the pan-blue camp's candidates this time, while only 71 percent of pan-green voters voted for the pan-green camp's candidates again. The high turnout rate of the pan-blue camp's supporters was certainly a result of the Ma phenomenon.
But how can Hsieh explain the low turnout rate of the pan-green camp's own supporters? Can the Ma phenomenon possibly have caused this? The DPP's defeat was a result of its supporters' disenchantment, far more than the Ma phenomenon.
So an important lesson is that the DPP actually lost the elections because its supporters did not vote. In other words, the party lost miserably by failing to satisfy its own supporters. It is thus evident that the DPP's fate lies in the stability of its support base. Once its base becomes shaky, there is little that the moderates can do to help -- and it's not clear how many "swing" voters exist anyway.
Where does the DPP have an advantage? Last year's presidential election provides an example. The party received at least 1.5 million votes more than it earned in the previous presidential election, and won the battle thanks in large part to the 228 Hand-in-Hand Rally. This event clearly demonstrated the party's comparative advantage. If it can continue to build on this advantage, then it will be able to hold the mainstream position.
Some DPP politicians peddle the myth of the "middle way." The biggest contradiction in Taiwan is national identity. Didn't the Taiwanese people use their ballots to show their determination to safeguard the nation in last year's presidential election? Today, the nation faces a polarized choice between the pan-blues and the pan-greens, a situation similar to that after World War II, when there was a choice between the US or the Soviet Union.
As then US secretary of state John Dulles commented, "To be neutral is immoral." In the sharp confrontation between pro-China and pro-localization forces, almost everyone has a stance.
If median voters really exist, most of them are indifferent to politics and seldom vote, or are "watermelon voters," who bend with the wind and pick the biggest watermelon in the field, as the Taiwanese saying goes. If the party only tries to curry favor with such voters, it will be unsuccessful, and will drive away its own supporters. The end result will be to further enhance the Ma phenomenon.
Besides, a party can only attract more moderate voters when its diehard supporters all enthusiastically support it. US social theorist Immanuel Wallerstein suggested that what looks normal statistically soon looks normal morally as well. This should serve as a motto for the defeated DPP.
Chin Heng-wei is the editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS