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 the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
Immediately after the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) “Justice Mission” exercise at the end of last year, a question was posed to Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal regarding recent developments involving the exercises around Taiwan, and how he viewed their impact on regional peace and stability. His answer was somewhat perplexing to me as a curious student of Taiwanese affairs. “India closely follows developments across the Indo-Pacific region,” he said, adding: “We have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region, in view of our significant trade, economic, people-to-people, and maritime interests. We urge all concerned
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
RSS