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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS