In an advanced democracy, leadership is more about the power to persuade and bargain than to dictate and manipulate.
Recent cases in East Asia have shown that popular leaders are enjoying shorter and shorter honeymoon periods after taking office. The decision by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to replace Premier Liu Chao-hsiuan (劉兆玄) with Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) secretary-general Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) over the government’s poor handling of Typhoon Morakot is a good example of this political cycle.
Ma is following in the footsteps of other Asian leaders by making mistakes such as failing to honor a promise to bring the economy back on track. If Ma had not raised voters’ expectations that he could achieve a growth rate of 6 percent, US$30,000 in per capita income and an unemployment rate of 3 percent, they would not feel so frustrated and regretful for voting him into office.
Furthermore, the Ma administration has been preoccupied with China-centric policies while overlooking government efficiency and discipline. The incompetent and inefficient response to the typhoon therefore cost Ma a premier and a Cabinet.
Will replacing the premier and most members of the Cabinet restore Ma’s declining domestic support? Can the new team of Premier Wu and Vice Premier Eric Chu (朱立倫) rebuild public confidence?
The Cabinet reshuffle was the only option for Ma if he wanted to survive the reminder of this term. But if the rationale was to pave the way for two sets of local elections, voters will punish the president for his political miscalculation.
What exactly went wrong with Ma’s leadership? In most cases, it is his attitude. Ma continues to highlight the 58 percent of the vote that he received at the last presidential election and has tried to use this to push through China-leaning policies without legislative oversight or considering criticism by the opposition. The Liu Cabinet’s slow and arrogant response to the typhoon also reflected a serious lack of connectedness with the needs of ordinary people.
Moreover, Ma and his Cabinet failed to use their authority to persuade the public on key issues and avoided consulting the opposition. Even with the KMT government controlling the executive and legislative branches, Ma needs to better utilize reconciliation to bridge social division and establish domestic consensus, particularly on cross-strait policy.
The efficacy of persuasion determines whether Ma should be aggressive or conciliatory in advancing major policies. Should he forge ahead boldly or focus instead on incremental change? Is it time to run up the flag and charge, or to mediate differences and attempt to move to a consensus step by step? Should he listen more to what voters are saying or concentrate exclusively on his agenda?
Ma should rely more on “issue” rather than “image” to build domestic support. Especially with bold initiatives, leaving voters behind is not an act of leadership but of self-indulgence and arrogance. Hence, the inability to strike a balance between foreign, cross-strait and domestic policies demonstrates weakness in the Ma administration.
In contrast to the Liu Cabinet’s academic background and bureaucratic thinking, the appointment of Wu and Chu reflects Ma’s desire to rely more on experienced, campaign-capable politicians. Wu and Chu developed their political skills in the rank and file, local government, the legislature and top posts in the KMT. Both are considered potential successors to Ma. Chu especially could be Ma’s running mate in 2012.
But if the new arrangement is solely aimed at strengthening Ma’s credentials through “pork barrel” politics and “black gold” political skullduggery to capture local elections to be held in a few months, Ma and the Wu Cabinet will be punished.
The public is more politically savvy and dispassionate over government performance and responsiveness than some might think. Ma and his new Cabinet must therefore bend their knees and lower their voices. A leader who indulges his personality, whether angry or conciliatory, at the expense of the public mood is guilty of hubris.
Liu Shih-chung is a visiting fellow at the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS