In the wake of the tainted oil scandal, several leaders from both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and opposition parties have said that Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) must understand “when to act,” ie, step down. It is edifying to examine how this issue is handled in more advanced democracies.
First, political responsibility is different from legal responsibility. In the UK, for example, prior to 1689 parliament would impeach a minister who had made a mistake or whose policies failed, and pursue criminal responsibility. This was replaced by a procedure forcing the Cabinet to take political responsibility.
Applying this example to Jiang would mean that whether his Cabinet should take political responsibility has nothing to do with legal responsibility, but should be decided by public opinion.
As head of the administration, Jiang should not be allowed to judge his own case. This is also why Jiang, as the opposition threatens to topple the governing party in its pursuit of political responsibility, should seek legislative support as he decides whether to stay or go.
This is not only the original intent of the 1997 constitutional amendment and in line with President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) pledge to restore the legislature’s right to approve the premier, it is also the same pragmatic method that French Prime Minister Manuel Valls relied on to resolve intra-party opposition.
Last month, after the French government shifted its labor policy toward the right and drew criticism from legislators in Valls’ own party — the Socialist Party — he followed constitutional precedent and called another vote of confidence, once again holding on to his position after winning with a majority.
If this had not been the case, Valls would have had great difficulty achieving anything regardless of how hard he worked in light of low public support for French President Francois Hollande and the series of defeats the party has suffered in local elections.
Moreover, apart from the position of the French president, there are no restrictions on the length of the terms of legislators, and this is in an attempt to break up a stalemate between the ruling and opposition parties and let public opinion attribute responsibility.
In Taiwan, disputes over the Cabinet’s implementation of policy since 1999 have surfaced from time to time, and the reason that there has never been a vote of no confidence followed by new elections is that legislators, in particular from the opposition, insist on finishing their terms.
This constitutional laziness extended the life of former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration, but hampered constitutional development.
A similar situation occurred in France during the third and fourth republics. The irresponsible behavior of the French parliament between 1879 and 1958 first led to defeat in the early days of World War II and then to defeat in Algeria, eventually leading to the Fifth Republic and constitutional reform.
Suppose that both the governing and opposition parties continue to ignore the issue of political responsibility. This would mean that we could never address the anarchy of Taiwan’s constitutional politics.
If Jiang is unwilling to accept the blame heaped upon him by the public, criticism would probably continue through the Nov. 29 nine-in-one local elections.
If the KMT were punished by voters, Jiang would not be able to hold on and a resignation would look much worse than it would today. This is precisely why Jiang should show the strength of character required to set a precedent for taking political responsibility.
Hu Tsu-ching is an associate professor of political science at Tunghai University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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