One of the most important considerations facing the president of any nation is what legacy they wish to leave. Will they simply be seen as a caretaker who avoided disasters? Or will they go down in history as having been transformative?
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has weathered the first year of her presidency with little problem. She has taken the reins of the nation and now knows firsthand the scope of the position. She also has the benefit of knowing Taiwan’s past three presidents well.
It is time, as the walrus in Lewis Carroll’s poem says to the carpenter, to talk of “other things.” It is time to go beyond ceiling wax, cabbages and kings. It is time to talk of transformational leadership, the type that creates a positive legacy.
Richard Neustadt, a US political scientist who focused on the role of presidents and their legacies in a democracy, considered the “power to persuade” as a chief sign of one’s leadership and a necessary ingredient of transformation.
However, transformational leadership demands more. Such a leader must identify necessary changes appropriate to the times, back them with the required vision to guide them, and win the commitment of a majority of legislators and people to bring it all to fruition.
Tsai is the fourth president freely elected in Taiwan, making it easy for her and Taiwanese to look back and rank her predecessors.
In this ranking, all can see that former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) stands out as most transformational: He made Taiwan the democracy that it is.
Showing leadership and vision, Lee identified the need to remake the nation into a democracy.
He forced the retirement of the “iron rice bowl” members of the Legislative Yuan, who shamefacedly had held their lucrative positions since the 1947 elections in China. From 1992 on, he required all legislators to be elected.
In 1996, Lee further orchestrated that the president would be elected by the people, even though he could probably have gotten away with less.
Of course, Lee was backed by a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) that held a majority of seats in the legislature, but it is foolish to think that they were all of one mind. There were many opposing voices in the KMT and many who still preferred the privileges of the one-party state.
Lee overcame the opposition, and when he finished his presidency he insisted that relations with China be done on a state-to-state basis.
The following eight years of Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) show a man under high expectations, but facing greater limitations. Chen initially came in as the first president of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP); his victory was due to a split vote in the KMT.
Thus, even though he won, Chen was saddled with having to deal with a legislature that was loaded with disgruntled KMT members and members of its spin-off People First Party (PFP).
The KMT and PFP both felt the dispossession that a democracy brings to those previously nourished in a one-party state. Even Lee ironically found himself kicked out of the KMT as a traitor.
Chen would end up in jail on corruption charges after a questionable double standard of justice at his trial, along with potentially perjured witnesses.
If there were transformational results that led to a positive legacy from him, they would be found in his insisting that Taiwan be Taiwan.
The next eight years under Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) fit a different pattern. One could say that never has so much promise and so much potential produced so little.
Ma entered on a backlash of disappointment with Chen; he was aided by his KMT having a veto-overriding majority in the legislature.
Ma’s majority win proved even greater than that of Lee in 1996. With the right vision, he could have done great things for Taiwan.
Unfortunately, that was his flaw. His vision was out of step with the people who elected him.
It was linked to a China-centric image of his waishengren (外省人) past — a term referring to people who fled to Taiwan with the KMT after its defeat in the Chinese Civil War — and not that of Taiwan. His vision lacked a sense of Taiwanese history.
When re-elected in 2012, Ma won by a much smaller majority. For those who could read the signs, he was sinking.
He had misread the mood and direction of the nation and would soon be internationally branded as the “bumbler.” The subsequent Sunflower movement predicted how disastrous the 2014 and last year’s elections would be for Ma and the KMT.
This is the history and challenge that Tsai stepped into.
After the Ma years, many expect a new vision and a clearer change in direction. Taiwanese not only gave Tsai a strong majority win, but also completely redid the Legislative Yuan.
Her party, the DPP, now controls the legislature for the first time. In addition, she has potential allies in the vibrant New Power Party.
The first questions that she and her party must articulate the answers to are vision questions: What vision and what changes are needed at this moment in the post-Ma years of Taiwan’s history? How can these changes best be articulated even as a hegemonic China tries to undermine her administration and Taiwan?
Tsai has already taken steps on the historical Aboriginal question, and the New Southland Policy provides an alternative to economic dependency on China. In addition, pension reform is necessary for the nation’s future economy.
How can all these be brought together?
The question of the nation’s “desinicization” raised by former Chinese KMT chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) is a no-brainer: Taiwan is Taiwan, and China is China.
If anything, the burden is on China to learn from Taiwan, as democracy is foreign to many Chinese. However, that is China’s problem and not Tsai’s.
What is lacking in all of the above is a clearly expressed vision.
To be transformational, Tsai must still find and articulate a clear vision for Taiwan’s future, a vision that will continue to move this democracy in a positive direction and at the same time provide economic hope.
Then, like Lee, she must find a way to work with positive people in the KMT who see Taiwan as Taiwan. All this is not easy, but legacies never are.
Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei.
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