President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) resumed the chairmanship of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) at its 18th National Congress on Saturday.
What is the difference between the old and new party-state systems? This is something that confuses everyone who is concerned about Taiwan’s democratic development. During the reigns of dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), a form of “democratic centralism” was used in which the leaders were the supreme authorities who dispensed authoritarian rule according to an organizational principle they called “a revolutionary democratic party.”
During former president Lee Teng-hui’s (李登輝) terms in office, he cited localized social forces to legitimatize the system and its leader, pushing for top-down democratic reform by using “power centralism.” Ma’s new system, one that is still taking shape, is an interest group of the rich and powerful, characterized by “black gold” and those who lean toward communists. The KMT has taken advantage of the hatred the public has shown toward former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) incompetence and corruption to stage a comeback. This comeback has had much to do with luck.
The Chiangs resisted communism to safeguard Taiwan. Later, Lee promoted democracy to achieve the same goal. They made anti-communism and democracy our national values. However, Ma’s system has inherited former KMT chairman Lien Chan’s (連戰) enthusiasm for cooperating with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to suppress independence, with the vision of peaceful development between the two sides. This new system is not anti-communist nor does it propose the self-determination of Taiwan. This is very worrying because it will probably be looked back on as “currying favor with China while selling out Taiwan.”
Human rights and state sovereignty would be missing from a cross-strait peace founded under such conditions. Apart from allowing KMT and CCP heavyweights to travel across the Taiwan Strait freely, what benefits would this really bring to Taiwanese workers?
For a time, Chen served concurrently as the president and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman. Internally, he attempted to synchronize party and government, turning the DPP’s Central Standing Committee into a dialogue platform for those responsible for party, administrative and legislative affairs. Externally, he wished to exercise flexible party diplomacy as party chairman.
The results fell short of expectations because the administrative branch did not accept the opinions of the party or legislative branch, not to mention that there was little mutual trust between the ruling and opposition camps and between Taiwan and China. As a result, their interaction was completely obstructed. The DPP’s failure here serves as a lesson.
The KMT should stop making administrative authority its central focus and should conduct a thorough review of Taiwan’s national interests to improve mutual trust between the ruling and opposition camps. This would also help the party gain confidence from the public. Otherwise, the new system is unlikely to build greater political prestige for Ma, and his policies will be directly challenged by party factions, while he and the KMT’s party resources sink into the mire of factions and even “black gold.”
The KMT-CCP platform will also turn Ma into the CCP’s representative in Taiwan and he could very well fall from grace just as he reaches the pinnacle of power.
Tseng Chien-yuan is an associate professor in the Department of Public Administration at Chung Hua University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers