The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) loss in the presidential election was expected. Judging from the experiences of mature Western democracies and young democracies in the former Soviet bloc, it was clear from the situation facing the DPP and the campaign strategies of its candidate Frank Hsieh (
A DPP victory would have been a miracle.
As seen in Western democracies, when a ruling party loses, it loses for a reason. After eight years in power, any party could lose an election, regardless of its performance. This is because governing entails difficulties that invite criticism from the opposition and it is hard for any government to keep the public constantly satisfied.
Therefore, after two consecutive terms in power, voters tend to look for a change of government regardless of government performance.
The DPP's election loss should also come as no surprise when compared to the experiences of the young democracies of the former Soviet Union. Many of the democratic governments that took over after the collapse of authoritarian rule lost elections after one or two terms. The main reason was that strong hatred of the dictatorship had led to high expectations for the democratic government.
But in many cases, the new government lacked experience and organization.
In addition, proximity to power makes corruption hard to avoid. As a result, voters became disappointed and were unwilling to vote for the new party again. As the DPP focused hard on fighting corruption, any corrupt behavior on the part of members of its administration drew even stronger criticism.
The DPP did face a problem that was entirely different from the challenges faced by Eastern Europe's young democracies. After the European regimes collapsed, all assets were returned to the national coffers.
Thus, in cases where the communists decided to run for election after democratization, they did not have the advantage of enormous party assets.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), however, acquired massive assets through its direct access to the national treasury, resulting in a huge asset imbalance between the KMT and the DPP; the KMT had NT$25 billion (US$832 million) against the DPP's NT$100 million.
These assets also led to an imbalanced distribution of human resources.
In addition, the DPP had to deal with a highly complex factor: the attraction and potential threat posed by the Chinese economy.
If China had not become an economic giant, it would have a limited capacity to oppress Taiwan. But China's power to influence Taiwan economically and the allure of its economy are immensely helpful to the KMT.
Burdened by eight years of public scrutiny, faced with corruption within its own administration and party, hit by the slowdown in the US and global economy, and lacking resources comparable to the KMT's, a DPP win would have been difficult to pull off.
Hsieh failed to provide a clear platform distinguishing himself from KMT candidate Ma Ying-jeou (
Just as with Ma's "one China market," Hsieh's "constitutional one China" drew a backlash and became a target of ridicule by the opposition.
Moreover, his call for "reconciliation and coexistence" failed to convince either pan-green or pan-blue voters. Not even the "assistance" of opposition bullies making fools of themselves ahead of the election could have saved the situation.
Cao Changqing is a political commentator based in the US.
Translated by Ted Yang
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS