In his inaugural address, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said that “As president of the Republic of China, my most solemn duty is to safeguard the Constitution. In a young democracy, respecting the Constitution is more important than amending it. My top priority is to affirm the authority of the Constitution and show the value of abiding by it. Serving by example, I will follow the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, especially the separation of powers. We must ensure that the government is based on the rule of law.”
However, after being in power for little more than a month, Ma is already facing criticism.
Perhaps Ma realizes that the Constitution limits the executive powers of the president and maybe he really does want to serve by example and strictly follow the constitutional distribution of powers by making the premier the “highest ranking administrative leader.”
Consequently, he has been criticized for backtracking and called a “geek president.”
Political commentators have pointed out similarities between the dual-leadership systems in Taiwan and France. In the latter, when the president and the majority party in parliament belong to the same political party, the constitutional system should gravitate toward a presidential system.
There is no need for Ma to follow the logic of a Cabinet system and retreat or even turn himself into a mere figurehead.
However, there is a big difference between the president’s authority as prescribed in the Constitution and the French president’s authority. If Ma really is serious about respecting and safeguarding the Constitution, then even if the president and the majority party in the legislature belong to the same camp, Taiwan’s president does not automatically revert to the role of the president in a presidential system, while the premier automatically should revert to the role as the president’s chief of staff.
Therefore, when people expect Ma to be a president of the type described in a presidential system, this not only conflicts with the Constitution, but also with the promises Ma has made in the past.
Some believe Ma should have total power and some even advocate that the ruling party and the government should act as one and that a “total government” should take “total responsibility.”
Some say Ma should be a president for all Taiwanese, capable of rising above party divisions and that there should be separation between party and government.
However, it will be impossible to meet all these ideas and principles at the same time, and this will play into the debate on whether Ma has reneged on promises to safeguard the Constitution. What is even more important is that we ask whether the constitutional system is really characterized by uniformity between power and responsibilities.
With the description of the president’s role in the Constitution contrary to democratic values such as a “popularly elected president,” “responsible politics” and other commonly held political beliefs, it will be hard for Ma to achieve an ultimate uniformity between power and responsibility regardless of how solemnly he vows to respect and safeguard the Constitution.
Amending the Constitution may be the only way to resolve this problem. Regardless of whether Taiwan moves toward a presidential system, a parliamentary system or amends the dual-leadership system, the key will be how the government deals with the relations and interaction between the president, premier and legislature.
RSS