In his inaugural address, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said that “As president of the Republic of China, my most solemn duty is to safeguard the Constitution. In a young democracy, respecting the Constitution is more important than amending it. My top priority is to affirm the authority of the Constitution and show the value of abiding by it. Serving by example, I will follow the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, especially the separation of powers. We must ensure that the government is based on the rule of law.”
However, after being in power for little more than a month, Ma is already facing criticism.
Perhaps Ma realizes that the Constitution limits the executive powers of the president and maybe he really does want to serve by example and strictly follow the constitutional distribution of powers by making the premier the “highest ranking administrative leader.”
Consequently, he has been criticized for backtracking and called a “geek president.”
Political commentators have pointed out similarities between the dual-leadership systems in Taiwan and France. In the latter, when the president and the majority party in parliament belong to the same political party, the constitutional system should gravitate toward a presidential system.
There is no need for Ma to follow the logic of a Cabinet system and retreat or even turn himself into a mere figurehead.
However, there is a big difference between the president’s authority as prescribed in the Constitution and the French president’s authority. If Ma really is serious about respecting and safeguarding the Constitution, then even if the president and the majority party in the legislature belong to the same camp, Taiwan’s president does not automatically revert to the role of the president in a presidential system, while the premier automatically should revert to the role as the president’s chief of staff.
Therefore, when people expect Ma to be a president of the type described in a presidential system, this not only conflicts with the Constitution, but also with the promises Ma has made in the past.
Some believe Ma should have total power and some even advocate that the ruling party and the government should act as one and that a “total government” should take “total responsibility.”
Some say Ma should be a president for all Taiwanese, capable of rising above party divisions and that there should be separation between party and government.
However, it will be impossible to meet all these ideas and principles at the same time, and this will play into the debate on whether Ma has reneged on promises to safeguard the Constitution. What is even more important is that we ask whether the constitutional system is really characterized by uniformity between power and responsibilities.
With the description of the president’s role in the Constitution contrary to democratic values such as a “popularly elected president,” “responsible politics” and other commonly held political beliefs, it will be hard for Ma to achieve an ultimate uniformity between power and responsibility regardless of how solemnly he vows to respect and safeguard the Constitution.
Amending the Constitution may be the only way to resolve this problem. Regardless of whether Taiwan moves toward a presidential system, a parliamentary system or amends the dual-leadership system, the key will be how the government deals with the relations and interaction between the president, premier and legislature.
When these factors are clear, we should consider complementary ways of choosing a president and a suitable mode of interaction between political parties and the government.
Irrespective of which type of party-government interaction is chosen, it will be difficult to make the current constitutional system run smoothly. During his terms in office, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) tried almost every mode of party-government interaction, without success.
Ma has said he wants to respect and safeguard the Constitution, but even in the legislature, where his party holds a majority, he faces a dilemma and will be stuck trying to balance what he should do and what he is allowed to do.
Wang Yeh-lih a political science professor at Tunghai University.
Translated by Drew Cameron
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS