Whether or not a cross-party "alliance for national stabilization" should be formed and how that it might be formed is a major issue. President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) seems ready to put the idea into practice. I would strongly urge that the make-up of the alliance be clarified first; otherwise it will not only fail to stabilize the political situation but also sour the relations between ruling and opposition parties, making it impossible to carry out political reforms.
According to Chen's plan, the purpose of the alliance is to make political stability the norm, not to create a confrontational majority. The alliance is only to function within the Legislative Yuan, not within government ministries or agencies. Its members would be lawmakers from the DPP and the TSU, independent legislators and some lawmakers from the "pan-blue" camp. As for the areas of cooperation, issues ranging from central government budgets and bills crucial to people's livelihood, to government restructuring and legislative reform would all fall within the scope of the alliance.
The alliance would strive to serve as a reservoir, conserving political energy for the ruling party and its partners, in an attempt to help the president gain the ascendancy in the legislature and transform the legislative majority into a president's majority. After all, the alliance is to be a legislative alliance.
The experience of other democracies suggests that there are usually two prerequisites for successful and stable majority alliances in a legislature. First, the alliance should be formed on the basis of parties, rather than individuals. The stronger the parties' cohesion, the more stable the alliance. Second, the alliance must secure a majority comfortably above the margin in the legislature, rather than a fragile majority. The larger the number of seats, the longer the alliance will last.
Analyzed from the perspective of these two conditions, blind spots do exist in the formation of an "alliance for national stabilization." Since the DPP and TSU combined still do not have a legislative majority, the alliance inevitably has to attract independents and KMT lawmakers. This kind of a majority alliance, scraped together by splitting other parties, can't last long, since it would be intrinsically fragile and its members could change their loyalties at any moment.
South Korean President Kim Dae-jung used to make every effort to draw members of the largest opposition party over to his side, but his ruling coalition broke up within a year. Japan's former prime minister Keizo Obuchi solicited support from the New Komeito party to "cooperate outside the Cabinet," meaning the party joined the legislative alliance but did not join the Cabinet. But conflicting policy stances led another partner, the Liberal Party, to disintegration and the ruling coalition lost its majority. We can safely say that a cross-party alliance will eventually fail if it is formed by a division of individual parties or causes allied parties to split up.
Members of the DPP, TSU and PFP are currently united and capable of voting unanimously, while independent lawmakers keep changing their positions. Meanwhile, most KMT lawmakers willing to support the DPP have bad reputations and the possibility of their joining the DPP or TSU is not high. In other words, the "alliance for national stabilization," which will have only a slim majority, will have to rely on a decisive minority of individuals who are beyond party control. They might use their votes as a weapon for frequent extortion, thereby causing trouble within the alliance. Even worse, if they change their minds, the alliance would fall apart to the great detriment of the president's authority.
In addition, building a majority by undermining other parties' foundations will further sabotage already ice-cold inter-party relations. It will destabilize politics and be detrimental to the president's promotion of political reform. Issues such as government, legislative, electoral and constitutional reform depend on high levels of inter-party consensus. Only then can state mechanisms be stable and enduring.
Britain's two major parties have both voiced their support for the House of Lords reform currently underway. When Japan's parliament reviewed four bills regarding political reform in 1994, all ruling and opposition party members unanimously expressed their support and the bills were passed. If Taiwan's systemic reforms manage to pass the legislative review with the help of a short-lived cross-party "alliance for national stabilization," the systems will have to be adjusted every time the legislative majority changes hands.
I therefore suggest that the alliance be mainly drawn from the "pan-green" camp. If independent lawmakers, such as Eugene Jao (趙永清), are willing to join either party on the basis of long-standing cooperation, they will naturally become part of the alliance afterward. That means the alliance would consist only of lawmakers belonging to parties, not independents. Of course, this kind of coalition might become a majority or it might simply hover around the margins of majority status, but it would at least have four key advantages.
First, there would be no need to split up opposition parties or for there to be high-level mobilization and confrontation between the "pan-blue" and "pan-green" camps. Second, there would be no need to rely on independent lawmakers. Opportunists would have no chance to exploit situations for personal gain. Third, the "alliance for national stabilization" will be able to debate and compete with the opposition alliance, thereby promoting a rational legislature. And fourth, as a ruling majority is created, constructive interaction could be promoted between the ruling and opposition parties. Parties could then negotiate on issues related to reforms of the political system before reaching a consensus.
In a legislature in which no single party has a majority, a ruling majority is a purely temporary phenomenon while harmony between the ruling and opposition parties remains a long-term issue. Reforms can only be initiated when all parties join forces on the basis of a high level of consensus. If the formation of such an alliance leads to an all-out war between ruling and opposition parties in the legislature, bills that are crucial to people's livelihoods will become the first to be sacrificed and political reform will not be carried out.
So do we need confrontation or harmony? The answer is obvious, but it depends on the wisdom of those in power.
Shen Fu-hsiung is a legislator from the DPP.
Translated by Jackie Lin
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS