A problem that has long haunted politicians is the phenomenon commonly known as “groupthink,” in which a small circle of decisionmakers with a highly homogeneous group of advisers is reluctant to, or afraid of, expressing dissent.
A similar phenomenon has characterized the budding relationship across the Taiwan Strait. When officials in Beijing make “goodwill” gestures or concessions to Taiwan, Taipei must refrain from making strong statements or taking any action that could be interpreted by Beijing as damaging to cross-strait detente.
Within this framework, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) plays the bad cop, which is tacitly supported by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After all, it would make sense for the government and the opposition to join forces in resisting foreign aggression. But in practice, that is very unlikely.
When the DPP was in power, its decisionmaking was also affected by groupthink. After 2004, in particular, the core decisionmaking apparatus became less tolerant of differing views within the national security community. In less than a year after the KMT retook power, cross-strait relations have undergone revolutionary developments, with “China fever” challenging the “status quo.” The influx of Chinese tourists and investment have been welcome developments, as was Beijing’s decision to allow Taiwan to participate at the World Health Assembly as an observer under the name “Chinese Taipei” earlier this month.
Given this, there has been less and less room for Taiwanese criticism of China’s cross-strait policies.
To achieve “complete rule,” the KMT government has had to promptly refute criticism and remove obstacles. However, those in power must understand that Taiwan’s real opponent is the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), not the DPP. Restricting expressions of concern at home and abroad by means of resource allocation — which the government appears to have done in recent months — goes against the spirit of political reconciliation.
If President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his officials are to overcome groupthink and achieve political reconciliation, the first step will be to take a broad strategic perspective.
Taiwan has already seen two transfers of government and more are expected in future. In a democracy, a political party cannot hold power forever. Political reconciliation is not just a slogan; it must be put into practice incrementally. If senior officials within the KMT and the DPP cannot engage in dialogue, officials at the middle and lower levels of the two parties should do so. The KMT and the CCP have had better relations of late because a discussion platform exists between them. Enmity between the KMT and the DPP is the absence of such a platform.
This is ironic for Taiwan, which finds itself in a position of inferiority. China’s policies toward Taiwan are sophisticated and it has enormous resources to implement them. In addition to the KMT and the Ma government, Beijing has also targeted the hearts and minds of Taiwanese through cross-strait dialogue.
As the nation encounters drastic changes in cross-strait relations, the government lacks a mechanism to evaluate its policies on a regular basis; the legislature is unable to supervise cross-strait policies; and there is no platform for dialogue among non-government experts.
RSS