When I was young, we often had to shout the slogan: “Long live the president.” With the nation’s democratization, we no longer shout the slogan and now simply cheer for the president.
One of the reasons the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) suffered a major defeat in last month’s local elections is that the president, under the current constitutional system, exercises power without accountability. New Taipei City Mayor Eric Chu (朱立倫) has proposed changing the current presidential system of government to a parliamentary one. Legislators, who have the power to call for constitutional amendments, are eager for such a change, as they would then no longer be barred from serving concurrently as Cabinet officials. It seems that the timing for a constitutional amendment has come.
There is no doubt that the Constitution is flawed and that changes are needed. However, judging from the nation’s special domestic and international political and economic situation, doing away with the semi-presidential system in favor of a parliamentary system requires further consideration.
First, abandoning a presidential system would be unfavorable to Taiwan’s sovereignty. In the eyes of some constitutional experts, the concept of the president as a symbol of sovereignty is groundless and not worth refuting. For most countries that have adopted a parliamentary system, some of which even have a foreigner as their head of state — such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, whose head of state is the British queen — the system does not hurt their status as independent states. The parliamentary system therefore does not affect their sovereignty.
This view is absolutely reasonable in any normal independent state, but Taiwan is different. Since Taiwan has never claimed independent statehood separate from China, but instead has proven its independent statehood through actions that highlight its sovereignty, direct presidential elections are highly significant.
No Taiwanese who experienced the 1996 presidential election will ever forget the tough statement made by then-Chinese premier Zhu Rongji (朱鎔基), who threatened that whoever promoted Taiwanese independence would suffer miserably in the end, as Beijing almost equated direct presidential elections with a declaration of independence.
Despite China’s verbal attacks and military threats, Taiwanese cast their ballots and declared to the international community that Taiwan does not belong to China and that it would elect its own president. If Taiwan were to withdraw this powerful declaration due to some systematic flaws, that would hurt its national sovereignty.
Second, in terms of democratic representation, direct presidential elections are much more representative of mainstream opinion than legislative elections. Government statistics show that voter turnout during past presidential elections was 76 percent in 1996, 82.69 percent in 2000, 80.28 percent in 2004, 76.33 percent in 2008 and 74.38 percent in 2012, while turnout for legislative elections was lower. Replacing the presidential system with a Cabinet system composed of lawmakers would therefore mean abolishing a system that has a higher degree of democratic representation.
Third, domestic conditions and public feelings should be taken into consideration. Taiwan is used to having a leader, as society expects strong leadership from a national leader. A president elected at the national level, who, thanks to the presidential system, has the largest public support base, is capable of suppressing or coordinating various political forces when necessary.
If Taiwan were to abolish the presidential system, the central government would be composed of legislators from different electoral constituencies representing different interest groups, and each legislator-turned-Cabinet member would be on the lookout for his own electoral constituency and interest groups. Moreover, these Cabinet members would have to deal with local government heads who have a greater support base than themselves. This would make comprehensive national planning difficult and the nation would be fragmented due to opposing interests.
Fourth, from a subjective perspective, for the past 18 years since the first direct presidential election was held in 1996, a presidential election every four years has more or less given voters a sense of being their own master. Abandoning direct presidential elections and allowing Cabinet members and political parties to make the decision for the public would almost be like returning to the era of indirect presidential elections. All past efforts and sacrifices would be erased. This does not sound right.
It is undeniable that the current presidential system is flawed, and the provision for the system of government under the Constitution is indeed questionable. However, what is needed is to increase presidential accountability so that it matches the president’s power, instead of abolishing the system altogether.
This is just like a suit that does not fit: Would it be better to buy a new suit or try to alter the original one? The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that a presidential system is better than a parliamentary system.
Chiang Huang-chih is a professor of international law at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry