Following to the standoff between the opposition and ruling camps -- regarding the Legisla-tive Yuan's use of its power to consent to the president's personnel appointments -- Presi-dent Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) reiterated that he will soon be initiating a cross-party "alliance for national stabilization."
However, no consensus appears to exist so far as to how such an alliance will be organized and run. Even Chen himself has made inconsistent statements on the matter. Therefore, controversy and uncertainty continue to plague the issue.
Irrespective of the constitutional form of government, the leader of any democratic country must endeavor to win over the support of a legislative majority. This is the norm of political democracy.
Having endured more than two years of pain and suffering as a minority government, Chen has finally realized the importance of winning the backing of a legislative majority. The organization of a cross-party "alliance for national stabilization" is consistent with the norms of political democracy.
Under a Cabinet and semi-president system, a coalition government is typically organized in such a way as to secure the backing of a legislative majority for the government. Through personnel and policy exchanges and compromises, the support of other political parties is gained. Under the circumstances, political parties are the basis upon which a coalition government is typically organized. In fact, it is common to see the formal drafting of joint policy guidelines between parties.
On the other hand, under a presidential system where political parties play a softer role, the president is in a position to directly appeal to and communicate with the members of the legislature. The exercise of veto power further provides the basis for the president to control the nation's policies. However, political standoffs between the legislative and executive branches in democracies, especially those with a presidential system, are frequent.
Today, Chen seeks to organize an "alliance for national stabilization" backed by a congressional majority. Unfortunately, since KMT Chairman Lien Chan (
Moreover, he has explicitly indicated his refusal to achieve inter-party cooperation through personnel exchanges or policy compromises.
It also remains unclear whether any formal agreement would be drafted, or whether the alliance would be covert or overt. So far, there are not too many precedences in other countries that can serve as references for the organization of an "alliance for national stabilization" in Taiwan.
In addition to appealing to their morality for facilitating "national stability," what possible incentive could opposition lawmakers possibly have for choosing to join an alliance? After all, those members of the opposition camp who are being asked to join the alliance supposedly did not receive offers of Cabinet appointments or compromises in public policy in return. They certainly do not have the endorsement or the backing of their parties should they choose to join the alliance.
Having relinquished all tactics commonly used by democratic countries to organize coalition governments, how will Chen manage to convince so many lawmakers to do the right thing and join his alliance?
This is one question that deserves our attention because it affects the development of Taiwan's democracy.
Wang Yeh-lih is a professor of political science at Tunghai University.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS