The dramatic Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) defeat in Saturday’s local elections has surprised everyone on both sides of politics. The elections were very much a chance for the electorate to evaluate the DPP central government and voters found the government wanting.
The massive Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) defeats in the local elections in 2014 and the presidential and legislative elections of 2016 have not been reversed because the KMT has failed to reform itself.
It has failed to determine how it wishes to face the voters and it did not have a unified team of candidates pushing particular programs. Rather, it had disparate candidates who emphasized local concerns and did not present any strong ideas on issues such as national identity.
Young voters, who overwhelmingly identify as “Taiwanese” and “not Chinese,” voted for the KMT because of issues such as economic growth and many voters also cast ballots for change. Thus, in Kaohsiung, where the DPP had governed for 20 years, the KMT won an excellent victory, despite the quirkiness of KMT mayor-elect Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜).
Experience in Taiwan and other democracies shows that voters frequently turn out governments after 20 consecutive years in office.
The only alternative to the KMT and the DPP is the New Power Party, which has not developed sufficiently to be a proper opposition party.
Thus, the elections were a poll on how the DPP government is performing. The government has become so cautious that it appears paralyzed. Even in a relative achievement such as the Labor Standards Act (勞動基準法), the government failed by giving the bill a title that made no sense in Chinese. This suggests an inability to implement basic aspects of key legislation reform.
The government could also have used the Council of Grand Justices ruling that same-sex marriage does not conflict with the Constitution and then easily passed a bill in the legislature, which it controls with a substantial majority.
Instead, it was frightened by threats from the Presbyterian Church, which went against the standpoint of the international Presbyterian Church. Its members would not have voted for the KMT anyway.
Similarly, the government was afraid of threats from evangelicals, many of whom would not have voted for the DPP.
Christians account for only 5 to 6 percent of the electorate. In succumbing to the threats of the churches, the government lost the support of many young voters.
Another failure was the execution of a prisoner.
It is true that many people in Taiwan believe the death penalty stops murders, but no one in government or in the community of non-governmental organizations has explained that this is simply not true. The government failed to explain to Taiwanese that jurisdictions without the death penalty have lower murder rates than places that do have it.
Yet, again, young voters who support human rights voted for the KMT to express dissatisfaction with the government’s actions.
Can the DPP turn this situation around before the presidential and legislative elections in 2020?
DPP heads have rolled following the KMT victory, including that of President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), who stepped down as DPP chairperson, and Chen Chu (陳菊), who resigned as Presidential Office secretary-general. Premier William Lai’s (賴清德) resignation has still not been accepted.
Such resignations to accept responsibility for electoral defeat are customary on both sides of Taiwanese politics, but who will replace these people? Will true reformers come into power and will they be allowed to act?
Will the DPP blood a new generation? People like Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) have made great contributions to the DPP in the past, but why are new people not being nominated? In many countries, national leaders are in their 30s and 40s. Why is Taiwan a leader in gerontocracy?
If the DPP had not let Pasuya Yao (姚文智) run in Taipei, it could have maintained its close informal alliance with Ko Wen-je (柯文哲). Instead, it was a knife-edge election with Ko winning by less than 3,000 votes.
Yao only obtained one in six votes. Has Yao’s candidacy badly damaged the informal alliance between the DPP and Ko?
If the DPP can restructure and implement the reforms that young people — Taiwan’s future — seek, then it still has a good chance in the 2020 elections, as the KMT is still not unified. Overall, the KMT did not win seats; rather, the DPP lost them, because it has lost the confidence of voters.
Even KMT leaders admit that the DPP government is still in a much better position than the Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) government after the 2014 local elections.
Can the DPP government turn around its disastrous administrative performance? Or will it slide to a massive defeat in 2020, even as the KMT continues to fail to reform?
Bruce Jacobs is emeritus professor of Asian languages and studies at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS