The legislative elections held many surprises, not least that the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) and the People First Party (PFP) passed the 5 percent threshold and so were each allocated two legislator-at-large seats in addition to the three legislative seats they won from constituency votes. However, nobody is talking about how ridiculous this system is.
The two-vote system originated in Germany. First used after World War II, the first vote went to the candidate, the second to the party. The Bundestag (the German parliament) also set a 5 percent threshold that political parties had to achieve before they could be allocated seats. There are good historical reasons for this. During the Weimar Republic in the 1920s, there were numerous small parties that the government needed to cut deals with, placing disproportionate bargaining power in their hands. German politics was consequently quite chaotic. This situation facilitated Adolf Hitler’s rise, leading Germany and the rest of Europe to the brink of destruction. This threshold contributed to the political stability in Germany so important for the country’s post-war development.
This system has been a major influence on the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution. During the 2004 National People’s Congress, a constitutional amendment was made, to the effect that seats for legislators-at-large and overseas compatriot members are allocated among political parties with more than 5 percent of the total party votes, proportional to the number of votes received. If this threshold is not reached, any vote received for that party is a wasted vote. This was the case for the New Party in the past election. If it were not for this threshold, their 3.95 percent vote would have secured them a seat.
Five percent is a significantly high threshold for a small party. The Germans set it so high because they have a cabinet system of government, in which the government is a coalition of political parties controlling more than 50 percent of seats between them. Having too many small parties risks the aforementioned consequences. Taiwan, on the other hand, has a presidential system, which is entirely different. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) won election twice and he remained in power for two whole terms despite his party having a minority in the legislature. It had no effect on how the Cabinet operated. This is clearly a case of blind imitation.
Put bluntly, our 5 percent threshold clause is the product of complicity by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to divide the electoral spoils between themselves. They can easily abolish it, but have conspired to keep the small parties out. Small parties causing havoc with governments have never been a problem here. The real issue is how the two major parties have gotten into bed with big business.
The PFP and TSU are small parties. They crossed the threshold this time, but how about next time? Purely in their own interest, they should try to engineer another constitutional amendment. It is important they do, for the sake of diversity in Taiwanese democracy.
The threshold is but one factor contributing to the unfair and unjust nature of the electoral system. According to DPP caucus whip Tsai Huang-liang (蔡煌瑯), when the legislature reconvenes, the party will propose a constitutional amendment to address the failings of the single-member district system and the phenomenon that not every vote cast is of equal value. This is worth debating, but the DPP ought to be addressing the threshold clause.
Huang Juei-min is a law professor at Providence University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations