THE CHINESE NATIONALIST Party's (KMT) victory in the legislative elections was more resounding than expected. Does this mean that the party will also sweep the presidential election in March on the coattails of the legislative landslide? Past experience shows there is not a firm correlation between the two.
In the legislative elections in 1995, the KMT only obtained 85 seats -- or three seats more than half the total seats -- down from 103. After the elections, New Party legislators Chou Chuan (
Shih's plan was to defeat the KMT nominee for legislative speaker, and by way of controlling legislative approval, also force a concession from the KMT on the nomination of a candidate for premier. Ideally, this scheme was expected to cause a domino effect in the ensuing presidential election in March and lead to the defeat of Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and his running mate, Lien Chan (連戰) -- and bring an end to KMT rule.
But the KMT's fragile legislative majority did not affect the subsequent presidential election and the KMT won with a 54 percent majority.
During the 1998 legislative elections, which were combined with the Taipei and Kaohsiung mayoral elections, the KMT obtained 123 of the 225 seats, securing a stable majority. Ma Ying-jeou (
The popular view was that this loss would be a major setback for Chen Shui-bian in his presidential bid.
Chen, however, became president in 2000, while the KMT candidate came in third. The KMT's previous legislative victories, therefore, did not help it win the presidential election.
Conversely, parties who succeed in presidential elections are not guaranteed success in subsequent legislative elections. In the legislative elections in 2001, the DPP sought to break out of being a minority government. After fierce campaigning and TV ads accusing the opposition of paralyzing debate on national issues and unreasonably boycotting budgets and operations, the DPP won 87 seats, thus becoming the largest party in the legislature.
However, an alliance between the KMT, the People First Party (PFP) and the New Party gave the pan-blue camp a legislative majority and the DPP remained in an awkward position.
Chen Shui-bian was re-elected president in 2004, yet the legislative elections later that year saw yet another majority coalition between the KMT, the PFP and the New Party, while the DPP failed to gain allies of its own.
Doing poorly in legislative elections thus does not entail failure in a presidential election -- nor does it promise success.
What really matters are the format of the elections, the size of electoral districts, the qualifications of the candidates and the political environment, as well as unforeseen developments, which can sway results either way.
For instance, military threats by Beijing in 1996 and and an attempt on Chen Shui-bian's life in the 2004 presidential election were both developments that could not have been predicted and both had an impact on the outcome of the elections.
As for the upcoming presidential election, Chen Shui-bian is quite right in saying that the DPP must not give up hope, while Ma is likewise correct in advising the KMT to remain humble.
After all, the next round is just beginning and the results are impossible to foretell.
Liu Hua-tsung is adjunct assistant professor at the Institute of Public Administration and Policy at Nan Hua University.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG AND ANGELA HONG
For Taipei, last year was a particularly dangerous period, with China stepping up coercive pressures on Taiwan amid signs of US President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline, which eventually led his Democratic Party to force him to abandon his re-election campaign. The political drift in the US bred uncertainty in Taiwan and elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific region about American strategic commitment and resolve. With America deeply involved in the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, the last thing Washington wanted was a Taiwan Strait contingency, which is why Biden invested in personal diplomacy with China’s dictator Xi Jinping (習近平). The return of
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy, advancing not only humanitarian aid but also the US’ strategic interests worldwide. The abrupt dismantling of USAID under US President Donald Trump ‘s administration represents a profound miscalculation with dire consequences for global influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. By withdrawing USAID’s presence, Washington is creating a vacuum that China is eager to fill, a shift that will directly weaken Taiwan’s international position while emboldening Beijing’s efforts to isolate Taipei. USAID has been a crucial player in countering China’s global expansion, particularly in regions where
Looking at the state of China’s economy this year, many experts have said that weak domestic demand and insufficient internal consumption might be its Achilles’ heel, with the latter being related to culture and demographics. Since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) took office in 2013, he has been combating extravagance and corruption as well as rectifying a bad atmosphere. China expert Stephen Roach said the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) regulatory crackdown has been targeting Chinese tycoons, such as Alibaba Group Holding Ltd founder Jack Ma (馬雲), and opposing what the CCP defines as “excessively extravagant lifestyles,” such as playing too
With the manipulations of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), it is no surprise that this year’s budget plan would make government operations difficult. The KMT and the TPP passing malicious legislation in the past year has caused public ire to accumulate, with the pressure about to erupt like a volcano. Civic groups have successively backed recall petition drives and public consensus has reached a fever-pitch, with no let up during the long Lunar New Year holiday. The ire has even breached the mindsets of former staunch KMT and TPP supporters. Most Taiwanese have vowed to use