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
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