The business of constitutional reform is very much colored by the political calculations of the major political parties, and the pan-blue and pan-green camps have been busy keeping each other in check. The so-called “third force,” riding on the crest of Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) electoral victory, presents itself as non-partisan, as if the third way were the only truly pure and simple force in politics remaining.
The point is politics would not be politics without political calculations. The problems arise when calculating the interests of individuals or political parties, and conforming to the thrust of majority public opinion. Whether the vision of an individual or the political tactics and strategy of a political party is successful, depends on the public and what it chooses to lend its support to.
Democratic politics has individuals competing against each other, and it also has groups fighting it out between themselves. Individuals have limited power and tend to join forces with others with similar ideas and viewpoints to form a political party. Small parties tend to be at a disadvantage in making their voice heard and will often seek out the major parties that share their ideas, merging with them or creating political alliances. How this power is negotiated, consolidated and allocated are all political calculations.
That the third force accuses the blue and green camps of engaging in political calculations is, in itself, a political calculation. It has selected not to join the two major parties and prefers instead to remain independent in its participation in constitutional amendments and elections, and to this end has to clamor against both the blue and the green camps to secure for itself a raison d’etre. It refuses to identify the merits or demerits of constitutional reform promoted by either party, and for this reason has become just as bad as the parties it complains about. It is all about political calculations designed to obtain power for itself.
The third force, which came into being in the wake of student and civic movements, characterized itself as part of their overall success, as all were seeking a shared goal, expressing the same objections, acting en masse. Now it is vying in the elections so it can get seats, and it cannot avoid having its own political calculations, combining its forces.
The third force’s position on reform had, in the past, been similar to, and was supportive of, that of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). There was no love lost between this force and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which it saw as a conservative force blocking reform in the legislature for decades. However, the third force is suddenly casting the DPP in the same light as the KMT, which is unfair and clearly done out of political calculations.
The DPP is now considering whether to stand aside in 13 electoral districts to give room for the third force, hoping this would help it prevent the KMT from keeping its majority in the legislature. Naturally, this is a political calculation placing the big picture before the DPP’s own immediate advantage. Is not defeating KMT candidates with the votes for the third force on top of the DPP’s organized vote just another political calculation?
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
The Comedy Club on Fuxing N Road in Taipei was vandalized with paint bombs mixed with feces on May 29, allegedly because one of its performers had satirized Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The incident has triggered concerns about the growing threat from China’s cross-border repression within Taiwan. On the day of the attack, a comedian surnamed Huang (黃), who is known for mocking Xi, was the headline performer. The Comedy Club founder said the assault was obviously politically motivated. China, which Freedom House said “conducts the most sophisticated, extensive and far-reaching campaign of transnational repression in the world,” has
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Zhu Fenglian (朱鳳蓮) at a press conference last week repeated the same, tired line, claiming that Taiwan’s future should be “decided jointly by the more than 1.4 billion Chinese people, including Taiwan compatriots.” The statement is absurd. Virtually every word is incorrect, with some parts mistaken to an astonishing degree. First, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never included Taiwan. When the Republic of China’s (ROC) original five-colored flag was established in 1912, Taiwan was still under Japanese rule. When the PRC was founded in 1949, Taiwan was under the control of president Chiang
Just before dawn on Jan. 17, a Chinese military drone crossed for the first time into Taiwanese airspace above a disputed coral reef in the South China Sea. The reconnaissance aircraft lingered over Pratas Island (Xisha Island, 西沙群島) for a few minutes, while Taipei issued warnings to leave over international radio frequencies. China said the flight was a “normal” training mission. Taiwan called it “provocative and irresponsible.” On the other side of the world, officials in Europe saw the maneuver as part of a long-term Chinese plan to salami-slice away Taiwanese control over its territory and, eventually, force its unification with China. EU officials
Following the outbreak of conflict in Iran, TikTok was flooded with videos targeting Taiwanese users. Many featured artificial intelligence (AI)-generated anchors posing as Taiwanese broadcasters with localized traditional Chinese subtitles. The videos warned of imminent social collapse due to liquefied natural gas shortages, blamed the Democratic Progressive Party and its alleged failed energy policies for a fabricated crisis, and used recycled footage from unrelated events to create the impression Taiwan stood on the edge of systemic breakdown. By saturating the information environment with falsehoods or selectively edited material designed to trigger emotional responses, malign actors can exploit cognitive vulnerabilities and
RSS