The transformation from rule by man to the rule of law and institutionalism lies at the heart of the democratization process, which is implemented by building a peaceful, just and competitive institutional arrangement through elections. These institutions select the national leader and handle national political affairs. The building of such an institutional arrangement requires coordination with various institutions in civil society, such as the freedoms of thought, expression and the press, interest and lobbying groups, a market economy and so on.
The most important institution, which functions as an intermediary between society and politics, is, without a doubt, a political system with two or more effectively independent and mutually counterbalancing political parties. In a democracy, this party system is intimately related to the government's executive, legislative and judicial system, although democratic principles say that the parties and the government should be clearly separated. The two systems fill different functions, and the separation of party and government is the normal state in a democracy.
There are "soft" and "hard" political parties. Most democratic countries, whether they have a presidential, semi-presidential or parliamentary system, have soft political parties. This means that parties are "election machines," that the president or prime minister does not double as chairman of his party (although he is perceived as its leader), and that he does not manage party affairs. Very few democratic countries have a system of hard political parties.
Before the presidential election in 2000, Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) made a solemn pledge that he would not let the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) direct government affairs as the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) had done. After his election, however, he has led a minority government, and opposition between party and Cabinet has been common.
To assure coordination between the Presidential Office, the Cabinet and the party, he decided two years later to double as party chairman in order to guarantee that "party and government walked in step with each other." He thus shouldered the repsonsibility of coordinating contacts between DPP factions, between the Cabinet and the legislature, and between DPP and the Cabinet. This made coordination of internal party affairs much more efficient, and dissenting voices within the party became fewer. Another result was that Chen himself often became the target of criticism, whether as part of internal party struggles or inter-party struggles, often placing him at the center of conflict.
Two years ago, I was fiercely opposed to Chen's doubling as president and party chairman based on fundamental democratic principles. Today, the party is not directing government affairs, and Chen has succeeded in being re-elected, but I am still opposed to synchronizing party and government, and to Chen's doubling as DPP party chairman.
I understand that Chen has asked each DPP faction to propose an amendement to the party charter changing the regulation stipulating that the president shall double as party chairman by adding "or the president shall designate a deputy party chairman to act as party chairman." If passed by the DPP's National Congress in July, I hope that Chen will set a precedent by stepping down as party chairman. According to DPP party regulations, Chen can appoint three deputy chairmen, but as a result of past intra-party conflict over this regulation, he has never used that power. If, however, the amendment is passed, he is certain to do so as part of planning for the future.
Chen no longer suffers the pressure to win re-election, and he cares for his place in history. Only by giving up the DPP chairmanship can he function as a mediator, transcending partisanship, to start up the constitutional reform project. He recently asked party and government officials to withdraw from party factional operations, and now he is prepared to step down as party chairman. This move is intended to build party politics grounded on a solid democratic foundation, and that is commendable. I believe, however, that his current reforms are a step too slow.
DPP Legislator Lin Chuo-shui (
The secretary of the DPP's Welfare State (福利國) faction, Lin Yu-sheng (林育生), says the amendment, centered on the will of the president and party chairman, is no trivial matter. He believes it should give more formal recognition to the suggestions of party members, and predicts that once the amendment has been passed, the party may be reduced to an election machine, and no longer be responsible for decision making or communication between party and government. He also says it would be better to return to a system where the party chairman is directly elected by party members.
History is watching. Although Chen is dismantling the party faction system out of a deeply held conviction, it will be difficult. But if he wants to build long-lasting democratic party politics, separating the party from government and stepping down as party chairman is a very good beginning.
Chiou Chwei-liang is a visiting professor at Tamkang University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
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
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS