Mon, Jun 20, 2016 - Page 8 News List

The root of the KMT’s identity crisis

By Jerome Keating

It has been a month since President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) was inaugurated and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) continues its downward tailspin. The party faces an increasing twofold challenge: first its identity problem vis-a-vis Taiwan and because of that identity problem, its inability to function in a democracy.

To understand this identity issue, one must trace the threads of the party’s history, its inability to separate itself from China’s dynastic and Confucian belief that only the elite should rule, and the fact that the KMT lost the Chinese Civil War.

In 1911, while Taiwan was part of the Japanese Empire, China began its emergence. It went from the Qing Dynasty to Yuan Shikai’s (袁世凱) emperor-like wishes to other warlords to a civil war. Through this the KMT considered itself the heir of Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙) and maintained a belief that because China was “not ready” for democracy, it should be under the KMT’s elite “tutelage.”

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) naturally contested this. It fought and emerged victorious in the civil war. However, throughout this struggle, neither the KMT nor the CCP really supported democracy; both supported a dynastic one-party state. Such exists in China today with the CCP in charge, leaving the KMT with the losers’ dilemma.

There are four questions that the KMT must resolve. First, though the KMT lost the civil war, how can it maintain that it did not because it believes in “one China” as the CCP does? Is their perceived difference just a matter of who rules?

Second, how can the KMT find a way to worm its way back into China even though it was driven into exile as diaspora after losing the war?

Third, how can it maintain its belief in a “one China” platform and pretend to balance this with a free and democratic Taiwan?

Fourth, how can it maintain its belief that the KMT, as the real “high-class Mainlanders” of Confucian tradition should still be the rulers?

The KMT was able to function as Taiwan became democratic as long as it remained the majority party and could claim high-class leadership and privilege, but now that the party has been voted out, its real troubles have begun and many members do not know how to react.

In this loser’s dilemma, how can the party preserve a shred of “high-class dignity,” when to others it is more like high-class thieves?

After losing China to the CCP, the KMT took the National Palace Museum treasures, as well as a good portion of China’s gold reserves. The museum’s treasures are still in Taiwan, but as for the gold reserves, a clear, transparent account has never been given.

Driven out as beggars, the KMT must also find a way to worm their way back into China. One answer could be to give back some of what they stole. In this they face a paradigmatic divide. The issue of “theft” is also one of the issues of transitional justice in Taiwan.

However it is resolved, it does explain why, in the minds of many KMT members, Taiwanese can never be “high-class rulers”: they are tainted by Japanese rule and intermarriage with the indigenous peoples, they are second-class citizens, or taibazi (台巴子, Taiwanese rednecks), unfit even to rule their own nation. Therefore, having been voted out, all that the “dispossessed KMT” now know is how to lash out and try to stymie the progress of the nation.

KMT Central Policy Committee director Alex Tsai (蔡正元) is a good example of one such lost soul who, having lost his “high-class Mainlander” status, now grasps at straws to criticize the new regime.

This story has been viewed 3798 times.

Comments will be moderated. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned.

TOP top