Ever since the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came to power, the political situation has been deadlocked. The confrontation between the pan-blue and pan-green camps has become tense and has affected the general public. The population has split into two camps and the economy has deteriorated further. There are several reasons for this.
First is political hatred and revenge. In the past, the DPP fought against the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) regime by moderately radical means, eventually winning office. Now, the KMT has taken an eye-for-an-eye approach and has boycotted most legislative processes.
Second, some politicians have a tendency to play dirty to increase their profile.
And third, as if there were not already enough unrest, media manipulation and unfair reporting have led to the sensationalizing of insignificant political issues.
It should be noted that recent bones of contention, such as President Chen Shui-bian's (
It remains true that despite its professed anti-corruption stance, the DPP has not abandoned these privileges. Naturally, the perpetuation of such practices gives rise to much criticism.
All these, however, are minor issues. It is disappointing that the ruling and opposition camps are focusing on such trivia. Forcing Chen to resign because of this does not constitute a solution, nor would the fundamental problems we are facing be resolved if he were to do so.
The sense of hysteria caused by ongoing political conflict breeds hatred. If the KMT regains power, the DPP may seek revenge, and the political situation will stay deadlocked.
To avoid this, party leaders should think carefully and must exercise self-restraint. Aristotle once said that temperance is the key to stable politics. In light of today's unrest, his words deserve serious consideration.
The real purpose of party competition is to gain power. But the right to rule is also influenced by how the constitutional system is designed. The present problem is a result of an unclear distinction between executive and legislative powers, which is made more complicated by a changing legislative structure.
It is now possible to see that the pan-blue camp hopes to form a Cabinet. Its relationship with Chen is tense and as a result the current Cabinet has been unable to operate satisfactorily. If the system is not reformed, the government will continue to tread water.
Legislative elections will be held next year. To coordinate the revamped legislative and executive powers, politicians should start negotiations now. At the moment, it seems inappropriate to amend the Constitution, as the political fallout would likely be tremendous. Given this, a political precedent could be achieved through negotiations between party leaders. After the election of the new legislature, the president should nominate as premier someone who is approved by the legislative majority.
Doing so, however, could result in a president and premier from different parties, which in turn might lead to the perpetuation of the deadlock. If the premier's co-signature were required for presidential orders, the president would become a figurehead. This, obviously, does not follow the spirit of direct presidential elections.
A directly elected president should be granted certain powers, and relegating him or her to a figurehead would violate the spirit of the electoral system. To ensure that the president retains certain powers, the duties of the president and the premier would need to be delineated.
In other words, the nominee for the premier's seat should be approved by the legislative majority, and both the president and the premier should enjoy specific authority. This would solve the problem of having a president with lots of power but no responsibility and a powerless Cabinet boycotted by the legislature. As executive power would be controlled by the president and the premier, this would prevent either of them from amassing excessive power.
Most countries that adopt presidential and Cabinet systems also have a bicameral system which prevents abuses by dividing legislative powers between two bodies.
The shortcoming of Taiwan's unicameral legislative system is that the legislature would become too powerful. The legislature enjoys not only legislative rights but also similar powers on the appointment of personnel. Legislative oversight of the president's nominees for the Control Yuan and the Examination Yuan and independent committees are some examples of this.
In a bicameral system, such rights are exercised by a senate. Most democratic countries have adopted a bicameral system; only socialist countries have adopted the unicameral one. However, legislative reform involves constitutional amendments, which are beyond the scope of this article.
Party leaders need to show vision and consider solutions to the present constitutional problems. They should also determine if it is possible for a president and a premier to work together if they come from different parties.
Next year's legislative elections offer a golden opportunity. Before the elections, all parties should reach a consensus on building a constitutional precedent so that the government can operate smoothly. Through constitutional amendments, such precedents could then be turned into constitutional articles, with appropriate adjustments to the legislative system following.
Chen Hurng-yu is a professor in the Graduate Institute of Southeast Asian Studies at Tamkang University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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