Print

Mail

wiki links

The urgency of drafting a constitution in transition

Transitional justice is an important part of Taiwan's path to social equality, justice and normal statehood. Improving social equality and justice includes uncovering the truth about the 228 Incident and the return of the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) stolen assets to the public. The march toward obtaining normal statehood includes the urgently required correction of the national title and the creation of a new constitution. These issues are currently been forcefully promoted and, though challenging, the creation of a new constitution has become an increasingly urgent task.

Let's look at two perspectives on the need for a new constitution.

First, a "one China" Constitution runs counter to the current cross-strait status quo. Creating a constitution for one's own country should be the natural order of things. Taiwan is a sovereign state; therefore, creating a new constitution does not change the status quo but is a true reflection of it. The idea of "one China" [including both China and Taiwan] is long outdated. More than 60 percent of people in Taiwan identify themselves as Taiwanese. Thus, neither domestic opposition nor the international community -- including the US, Japan and China -- have any reason to oppose Taiwan's creating a new constitution either by obstruction or threats.

Second, amending the Constitution is a formidable challenge. In 2005, the mission-oriented National Assembly amended the Constitution and designed a high threshold for constitutional amendments by requiring that three-quarters of all legislators are present at the vote, and that three-quarters of those present vote for the amendment. The amendment must then be put to a referendum where half of the total electorate must approve and pass the proposal. Implementing such high requirements is no different from blocking Taiwan from normalizing its status as a country.

Furthermore, the 2005 Constitutional amendment, the seventh, is fraught with problems. Not only does the mission-oriented National Assembly lack legitimacy and sufficient representativeness because of its small membership, but there is also a lack of social consensus behind the amendment because the final decision was made after a compromise only between the Democratic Progressive Party and the KMT, the two largest political parties.

This further highlights the difficulties in achieving normal country status through constitutional amendment. The problem is three-fold. First, cutting the number of legislative seats could well result in another "eternal" legislature [like the one that was elected in China in 1948 and remained in place until 1992]. It also expands the power of legislators and gives advantages to incumbents.

Second, the result of the single-member district double-ballot system beginning with the next legislative elections is that all votes are not equal. For example, the new system stipulates that each city and county elect at least one legislator, which means that a vote in cities and counties with small populations like Kinmen and Matsu will be more influential than a vote in counties and cities with higher populations. This violates democratic principles.

Third, single-vote districts may result in M-shaped public opinion, since candidates in the end will be forced to make ideological appeals to pan-blue or pan-green supporters which will only further promote the creation of a politically M-shaped society.

In the 1990s, former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) led Taiwan toward democratization. I hope Taiwan's democracy will continue to develop, bringing about a constitutional amendment with positive results.

Margot Chen is a research fellow at Taiwan Advocates, a think tank initiated by former president Lee Teng-hui.

Translated by Lin Ya-ti
This story has been viewed 1154 times.