If political parties in a democracy do not represent mainstream opinion, they will either shrink or disappear altogether. This is what happened to the New Party and the Taiwan Solidarity Union. It looks as if the New Power Party is going down the same path, and when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) elected former deputy legislative speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) to be its chairwoman, that could be yet another sign that this observation is correct.
However, that might not be the case if Hung, as a new party leader for whom the public do not have high expectations, were only willing to push the party’s China policy toward the center and to deal with the party’s assets both symbolically and practically before the next regular KMT chairperson election in August next year. The main point is the party must not just talk about an intraparty revival; it must bring about a revival in the minds of mainstream public opinion.
No one will deny that the KMT carries an authoritarian legacy, and from the time of the two Chiangs through democratization, the KMT’s struggles have been described online with the phrase “unless the KMT falls, Taiwan will never do well.”
However, perhaps we should ask ourselves if it would really be a good thing if the KMT were to disappear. Imagine the following: The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) remains in power for 30 years, it commands an 80 percent majority in the legislature and it is complemented by a deep-green party.
What kind of Taiwan would that be?
The US Republican Party has Donald Trump, but no one has ever heard the Democratic Party say that “unless the Republican Party falls, the US will never do well.”
Checks and balances is democracy 101, and with the division between the executive and legislative branches in Taiwan, what would happen if the KMT falls; who would monitor the DPP?
Even more importantly, given the continuing division over national identity, who would speak up for the almost 50 percent of voters who did not vote for the DPP? Would not a Taiwan without the hope of a transfer of government power be tantamount to a return to the authoritarian era?
Until the KMT is revived, the 200,000 members of the party’s Huang Fu-hsing (黃復興) military veterans’ branch that diverge from public opinion must let go and Hung must gain an understanding of what people outside the KMT really care about: party assets, party assets and party assets.
It is as if the middle class that voted for president-elect Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) this year were already beginning to worry that the DPP might bring back the political and economic curse from former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) era. If Hung really did think things through, she would find that there are innumerable examples of political parties that have gone through a revival.
The party that has found itself in a situation most similar to the KMT is The Left (Die Linke) in Germany. Its predecessor was the East German Communist Party, and after German unification, The Left’s membership fell from a high of 2.3 million to 350,000 as its authoritarian character came under fire.
At first, when the party’s assets were discussed, it was evasive. It was not until 1995, when it had almost disappeared altogether, that the party reached an agreement with an independent government committee and agreed to give up all assets and only keep a couple of buildings. The party then rebounded from this low and in 2014 put an end to 20 years of abjection as its candidate won the state premier election in Thuringia.
Next, let us take a look at Indira Gandhi and the Indian National Congress Party and how she brought the party back to life after a devastating defeat in India’s general election in 1969. She could tell Hung that there were three secrets to getting it done: inspiring leadership, a visionary narrative and policies, and highly effective party operations. As to the final point, Gandhi successfully ended party infighting.
Furthermore, the KMT also possesses some of the advantages that former US president Bill Clinton had: an economic discourse and policies. After Clinton took office, he turned the nation around and brought the Democratic Party back to life following the “Reagan miracle.”
The KMT also used to hold an advantage when it came to cross-strait relations, but with Hung’s dominance, the party has kept rehashing the “one China, same interpretations” formula as it is being painted as a fellow traveler of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
It would not be difficult to resolve this issue, which could be made through market segmentation. If the DPP’s stance toward China is to oppose China and focus on Taiwanese democracy, the KMT could befriend China and talk about the democratization of the CCP.
Taiwan’s political parties have long since stopped pushing for freedom, democracy and human rights in China. There are vague memories of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) having talked about these issues, but he is in the twilight of his presidency.
So will the KMT disappear? The key to answering this question is whether the party is able to return to the mainstream.
Albert Shihyi Chiu 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