Not surprisingly, in the final countdown to the five special municipality elections on Nov. 27, the Taiwanese political scene has been full of negative campaigns, smear attacks, tears, partisan talk show finger-pointing and last-minute dirty tricks.
There is no doubt that the results of the elections will have implications for Taiwan’s political landscape. Nevertheless, what matters most is the extent to which party politics will evolve in the post-municipality-election era and what aspects of policy debate the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) decide to carry over to future legislative and presidential elections.
The number of seats and total votes that each party can garner will determine the winner and the loser. The ruling KMT and President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration need not only ensure the continuation of its governance of Taipei, the soon-to-be formed Sinbei City (the upgraded Taipei County) and Taichung, but also to avoid a further decline in votes on the heels of the three-in-one local elections in December last year and a series of legislative by-elections. The DPP hopes to win more seats in addition to the cities of Kaohsiung and Tainan, and outnumber the KMT in voter turnout.
Despite old campaign practices, the voters are witnessing the emergence of a new electoral culture and campaign style, which constitute a driving force for the maturation of Taiwan’s political culture. For example, DPP Taipei mayoral candidate Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) and Sinbei City mayoral candidate DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) have both introduced a non-traditional campaign style.
Faced with the reality that the KMT enjoys more vote leverage in both cities, Su and Tsai are downplaying partisan disputes and portraying their campaigns as a debate on governing capability.
If Su and Tsai are to win, it will signify a transformation in Taiwan’s political culture to an institutionalized party competition that centers more on rationality, moderation and bipartisanship. If Su or Tsai represent the DPP for the presidential election in 2012 or 2016, they will both have the legitimacy and the popularity to help shift the DPP’s image of a conventionally pro-independence force to that of a responsible and responsive political party that transcends the blue-green dichotomy in Taiwanese society. The debate over the party’s future cross-strait policy will also be based largely on pragmatism and take international expectations more into account.
If Su and Tsai stick to what they have advocated in the campaign and successfully convince the middle-of-the-road voters to endorse them, Taiwanese politics and the DPP will enter into a new phase of democratic transformation where the voters’ decision will be based more on leadership, governing capability and government efficiency than the issue of unification or independence.
As the ruling power, Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) has faced tremendous pressures from Su’s moderate and non-partisan campaign strategy. The KMT also faced a similar crisis in Sinbei City when Taipei County Commissioner Chou Hsi-wei (周錫瑋) was ranked as the worst governor in Taiwan. To secure a win, the KMT replaced Chou with former vice premier Eric Chu (朱立倫).
Even though the special municipality elections are local by nature, they have been portrayed as a midterm election for Ma. He and the KMT can not afford to lose either Taipei or Sinbei City because it will signify a vote of no confidence in Ma’s governance.
That’s the main strategic calculation behind the KMT’s planned parade tomorrow to rally hard-core KMT supporters. Given that most KMT supporters were reluctant to go out and vote for the party in the previous elections, Ma and the party’s leadership believe that the only effective way to beat Su is to utilize the KMT’s electoral -advantage in Taipei to increase the blue camp’s voter mobilization.
From a campaign perspective, is natural for the KMT to highlight the blue-green division in Taipei and Sinbei cities to prevent light-blue voters from supporting DPP candidates. Nevertheless, this serves to accelerate the deterioration of Taiwan’s political culture along partisan lines and ethnic divisions.
Since the KMT has controlled both the executive and legislative branches of government since Ma took office, the KMT should take full responsibility for the broadening of the partisan divide within Taiwanese society. Absolute governance means absolute responsibility. It is irresponsible to blame all the faults on the opposition DPP for what is in fact the KMT’s own poor governance.
After a decade of blue-green political wrestling, Taiwanese voters are craving new leaders with bold and realistic agendas, coupled with the skill to communicate and persuade. Most importantly, most voters expect a new mayor who can deliver on his or her campaign promises and refrain from using partisan divisions to distract from poor governance.
This is the true meaning of the special municipality elections.
Liu Shih-chung is a senior research fellow at the Taipei-based Taiwan Brain Trust.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
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.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
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