With legislative and presidential elections scheduled for the end of this year and March next year, the government has made the case for a merger of the two important votes, arguing that holding them separately, as is mandated under the prevailing system, imposes too heavy a burden on the national coffers.
Although cost-saving measures and convenience for the public are hard to argue against, we should not lose sight of the benefits of the current system, however unwieldy and costly it may be.
The principal advantage of staggered presidential and legislative elections is that it increases the frequency by which the public can impose checks on the executive. Optimally, legislative polls should be held halfway through a presidential term, which would give the public enough time to assess the effectiveness of the government’s policies and, with their vote, adjust legislative checks (restraints) on or support for the executive.
Conversely, if the two elections were to be held simultaneously, the public would have to wait a full four years before it could use its vote to express support for or opposition to the executive and thereby ensure that the appropriate correctives are made.
Imperfect though it may be, the parliamentary system creates a balance of power in government by imposing restraints on the Cabinet, which is healthy for democracy. Granted, for the legislature to fully play its role as a check on the executive, it should be comprised of a substantial number of seats from the opposition, which isn’t the case at the moment. Although, as we saw during former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration, a strong opposition in the legislature can create gridlock, the opposite is equally, if not more, detrimental to democracy. When, as is the case at present, a party has the majority in the executive and the legislature, we risk seeing the emergence of governance without checks and balances, which is a dangerous step toward authoritarianism.
By retaining a staggered system for the presidential and legislative elections, a country can ensure that every two years or so, voters can impose the necessary correctives to ensure that the government system does not swing too far in one direction or the other, avoiding parliament becoming either a rubber-stamp or a paralyzing element.
It is ironic that Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), discussing government plans to increase the salaries of public servants earlier this week, argued that a decision on the matter should not be affected by fears of its impact on the national debt. By Wu’s logic, it would seem that in saving money, not all things are equal, and that giving government employees a 3 percent pay raise is more important than ensuring the health of the nation’s democratic system.
Supporters of the merger of the presidential and legislative elections argue that the move would save the nation about NT$470 million (US$16.21 million). Meanwhile, a 3 percent pay raise for public servants would impose an estimated NT$22 billion burden on state finances every year.
This is not to say that public servants are not entitled to a salary raise, but to make the case for merged elections based solely on a financial argument — and this has been the government’s main selling point — sounds dishonest.
Given its likely deleterious impact on the quality of Taiwan’s democratic system, the decision whether to merge the presidential and legislative elections is one that should not be taken lightly. The maintenance of a responsible and responsive democratic apparatus should not be sacrificed for economic considerations.
J. Michael Cole is deputy news editor at the Taipei Times.
In September 2013, the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) quietly released an internal document entitled, “Coursebook on the Military Geography of the Taiwan Strait.” This sensitive, “military-use-only” coursebook explains why it is strategically vital that China “reunify” (annex) Taiwan. It then methodically analyzes various locations of interest to People’s Liberation Army (PLA) war planners. The coursebook highlights one future battlefield in particular: Fulong Beach, in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District, which it describes as “3,000 meters long, flat, and straight,” and located at “the head of Taiwan.” A black and white picture of Fulong’s sandy coastline occupies the
US President Joe Biden’s first news conference last month offered reassuring and concerning insights regarding his administration’s approach to China. Biden did not mention the contentious meeting in Alaska where US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan confronted China’s top two foreign policy officials. The Americans implicitly affirmed the administration of former US president Donald Trump’s direct pushback against communist China’s repressive domestic governance and aggressive international behavior. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) and Chinese Central Foreign Affairs Commission Director Yang Jiechi (楊潔篪) had explicitly demanded a return to the policies of
Early last month, China’s rubber-stamp legislature, the National People’s Congress (NPC), officially approved the country’s 14th Five-Year Plan. The strategy was supposed to demonstrate that China has a long-term economic vision that would enable it to thrive, despite its geopolitical contest with the US. However, before the ink on the NPC’s stamp could dry, China had already begun sabotaging the plan’s chances of success. The new plan’s centerpiece is the “dual-circulation” strategy, according to which China would aim to foster growth based on domestic demand and technological self-sufficiency. This would not only reduce China’s reliance on external demand; it would also
Interrupting the assimilation of Xinjiang’s Uighur population would result in an unmanageable national security threat to China. Numerous governments and civil society organizations around the world have accused China of massive human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and labeled Beijing’s inhumane and aggressive social re-engineering efforts in the region as “cultural genocide.” Extensive evidence shows that China’s forceful ethnic assimilation policies in Xinjiang are aimed at replacing Uighur ethnic and religious identity with a so-called scientific communist dogma and Han Chinese culture. The total assimilation of Uighurs into the larger “Chinese family” is also Beijing’s official, central purpose of its ethnic policies