The participation of two openly gay candidates in the Dec. 1 legislative elections -- one in Taipei and one in Kaohsiung -- prompts reflection on the likely trajectory of representative politics in Taiwan. Not, we hasten to add, that we have any problem over the likelihood of openly gay candidates being elected to the legislature. After all, statistical probability suggests they will only join the couple of dozen gay legislators who are still firmly in the closet.
But once again the question is raised of whether Taiwan needs constitutional reform of its legislative election system.
It is not that we wish to make it harder for openly gay candidates to get elected. But Taiwan's unique combination of multi-member electoral districts and single non-transferable voting displays an increasing tendency toward single-issue radicalism that flies in the face of the kind of consensus-building centralism that is the stuff of modern democratic politics.
In any modern Western-style democracy, radicalism is seen as something that alienates the centrist swing voters who decide elections and therefore is something to be avoided. If this makes for bland legislatures, it also, by and large, keeps unwholesome points of view -- neo-Nazism and Fascism, for example -- out of mainstream political discourse.
Taiwan has an electoral system that does just the opposite. It does this by allowing people to be elected with a very small proportion of the overall vote. In the larger electoral districts it is quite easy to be elected with only 4 percent of the total votes cast. Readers who don't see a problem here should ask themselves what is easier: persuading four people in 10 as to the strength of your candidacy, or four people in 100?
As vote-buying becomes both less effective and more dangerous, people are looking for new ways to get elected. In this situation radicalism works.
Take for example our bete noire, the New Party's Elmer Feng (
The point here is that the ability to get elected by appealing to -- or buying, for that matter -- a very small group is one of the distinguishing features of Taiwan's electoral system. Though only the politically conservative seem to have exploited it so far, the potential for more candidacies appealing not to a broad mass of voters but to a particularly angry minority is huge. Openly gay candidates were obviously the next step.
There is nothing wrong with that. But one has to worry about an electoral system that, if not changed, will over the next decade return an increasing number of legislators elected on minority-issue or special-interest tickets, whose jobs depend far more on their visibly championing those issues from their legislative soapbox than in the often stupendously dull work of passing budgets and reviewing legislation that is a lawmaker's lot. One thing that most people agree on, irrespective of political leaning, is that Taiwan's politics need to become more consensual. Yet the election system will prevent this from happening.
The obvious solution to this is to redraw Taiwan's electoral districts into single member constituencies. Let people win seats who can win a majority of an albeit smaller vote. This will produce a tendency toward middle of the road politics which will facilitate consensus-building. In unity, we are told lies strength. So why perpetuate a system which is likely to result in greater disunity and greater weakness. This is something that Taiwan cannot afford.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
Taiwan is confronting escalating threats from its behemoth neighbor. Last month, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army conducted live-fire drills in the East China Sea, practicing blockades and precision strikes on simulated targets, while its escalating cyberattacks targeting government, financial and telecommunication systems threaten to disrupt Taiwan’s digital infrastructure. The mounting geopolitical pressure underscores Taiwan’s need to strengthen its defense capabilities to deter possible aggression and improve civilian preparedness. The consequences of inadequate preparation have been made all too clear by the tragic situation in Ukraine. Taiwan can build on its successful COVID-19 response, marked by effective planning and execution, to enhance
Since taking office, US President Donald Trump has upheld the core goals of “making America safer, stronger, and more prosperous,” fully implementing an “America first” policy. Countries have responded cautiously to the fresh style and rapid pace of the new Trump administration. The US has prioritized reindustrialization, building a stronger US role in the Indo-Pacific, and countering China’s malicious influence. This has created a high degree of alignment between the interests of Taiwan and the US in security, economics, technology and other spheres. Taiwan must properly understand the Trump administration’s intentions and coordinate, connect and correspond with US strategic goals.
RSS