The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is holding its chairmanship poll today. Chen Shih-meng (陳師孟), former secretary-general of the Presidential Office, has voiced concerns that a chairperson favoring the “middle road” will be elected because of the DPP’s recent electoral defeats.
Chen’s worries are not groundless. Since the DPP’s establishment in 1986, the middle road has had a strong voice in the party. When President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) bluntly proposed his “four noes and one without” policy in 2000, the middle road became mainstream. This is bad for both the party and the development of Taiwan independence.
Political scientists often cite the Dow Theory, which says that in a political confrontation, the left and right wings make up a minority while supporters of the middle road make up the majority. On this basis, many academics claim they have found the best strategy for the blue and green camps: a platform leaning neither toward unification nor independence.
This is questionable, because the issue of sovereignty cannot be compared with that of distribution and production. Generally, support for the left and right wing stance on production and distribution fluctuates in party competition in capitalist societies. The left or the right stance will be more popular at different times, but neither is ever eliminated by the other. The sovereignty issue, on the other hand, is a zero-sum game, so in the long run, the trend will be either toward unification or independence, and there would be no turning back. The neutral stance of “non-unification, non-independence” is transitional.
This can be seen from Taiwan’s development over the past 15 years. Support for Taiwan’s independence temporarily dropped when Chen adopted the middle road, but in the long run, it has increased. If the unification, independence and the centrist stances each represent one-third of the population, the current 60 percent support for independence — nearly two-thirds — has eliminated the centrist stance.
Thus, the DPP was not defeated because it has abandoned the middle road, but rather because of public disappointment with its administrative performance over the past eight years. Even president-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) understands that the middle road is not enough, and he continues to promote Taiwan awareness.
Still, not taking the middle road does not mean the DPP must take a radical path.
The middle road is bad for the development of Taiwanese independence, but so is the radical path, which often ignores objective conditions and the majority opinion. It would be disadvantageous to the independence movement if such a path were to trigger international or domestic anger.
Although the DPP should not take the middle road, it should note that voters are neutral. If the radicals relentlessly attack centrist voters for being opportunistic, they will push voters into the hands of the pan-blue camp, and this is no help in strengthening the independence camp. Therefore, the party should take a “steady” path that is neither centrist nor radical. This path should be based on a firm and clear stance, goodwill and flexible and stable policies that will attract centrist supporters. This would be the best way to benefit Taiwan’s independence.
The DPP has three possibilities to choose from: a steady line that attracts voters without abandoning its position; a middle line that sacrifices its stance while leaning toward the blue camp; or a radical line that sticks to its stance but drives centrist voters away.
As I see it, neither of the candidates for DPP chairperson follows the middle path. So the question is: Could they be considered steady or radical?
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Eddy Chang
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on
RSS