President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) resumed the chairmanship of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) at its 18th National Congress on Saturday.
What is the difference between the old and new party-state systems? This is something that confuses everyone who is concerned about Taiwan’s democratic development. During the reigns of dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), a form of “democratic centralism” was used in which the leaders were the supreme authorities who dispensed authoritarian rule according to an organizational principle they called “a revolutionary democratic party.”
During former president Lee Teng-hui’s (李登輝) terms in office, he cited localized social forces to legitimatize the system and its leader, pushing for top-down democratic reform by using “power centralism.” Ma’s new system, one that is still taking shape, is an interest group of the rich and powerful, characterized by “black gold” and those who lean toward communists. The KMT has taken advantage of the hatred the public has shown toward former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) incompetence and corruption to stage a comeback. This comeback has had much to do with luck.
The Chiangs resisted communism to safeguard Taiwan. Later, Lee promoted democracy to achieve the same goal. They made anti-communism and democracy our national values. However, Ma’s system has inherited former KMT chairman Lien Chan’s (連戰) enthusiasm for cooperating with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to suppress independence, with the vision of peaceful development between the two sides. This new system is not anti-communist nor does it propose the self-determination of Taiwan. This is very worrying because it will probably be looked back on as “currying favor with China while selling out Taiwan.”
Human rights and state sovereignty would be missing from a cross-strait peace founded under such conditions. Apart from allowing KMT and CCP heavyweights to travel across the Taiwan Strait freely, what benefits would this really bring to Taiwanese workers?
For a time, Chen served concurrently as the president and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman. Internally, he attempted to synchronize party and government, turning the DPP’s Central Standing Committee into a dialogue platform for those responsible for party, administrative and legislative affairs. Externally, he wished to exercise flexible party diplomacy as party chairman.
The results fell short of expectations because the administrative branch did not accept the opinions of the party or legislative branch, not to mention that there was little mutual trust between the ruling and opposition camps and between Taiwan and China. As a result, their interaction was completely obstructed. The DPP’s failure here serves as a lesson.
The KMT should stop making administrative authority its central focus and should conduct a thorough review of Taiwan’s national interests to improve mutual trust between the ruling and opposition camps. This would also help the party gain confidence from the public. Otherwise, the new system is unlikely to build greater political prestige for Ma, and his policies will be directly challenged by party factions, while he and the KMT’s party resources sink into the mire of factions and even “black gold.”
The KMT-CCP platform will also turn Ma into the CCP’s representative in Taiwan and he could very well fall from grace just as he reaches the pinnacle of power.
Tseng Chien-yuan is an associate professor in the Department of Public Administration at Chung Hua University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
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
RSS