Having lost the presidential election on Jan. 14, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is now analyzing the reasons for its defeat. A report is expected at the end of this month.
Outgoing DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has said she thinks the party should review its performance in a scientific and professional way, thereby identifying the obstacles that need to be overcome to secure electoral victory in the future.
It is often said that “success has many fathers; failure is an orphan.” Although success is always easier to deal with, losers still need to analyze the reasons for failure. This may be a tough task, but it is absolutely unavoidable.
Regardless of how many causes are ultimately identified for the DPP’s defeat, chief responsibility lies with the party itself, not the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), nor the wider social environment.
For the DPP the review is an important display of political intent because it is essential that the party honestly and openly discusses its failure to win the presidential election.
After winning re-election, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said he stayed at home over the Lunar New Year holiday to contemplate his mistakes and why the KMT failed to repeat its landslide victory of 2008. Following this period of “contemplation” he said at a weekly KMT meeting that local governments had tried to take all the credit for the central government’s investments in southern Taiwan, adding that it was necessary to step up the dissemination of information to counter such claims.
It is surprising that a newly re-elected president would feel the need to draw such a distinction between central and local government, divide the nation into north and south, and pigeonhole people as pan-blue or pan-green.
Does that mean that Ma is president of just the 6.89 million people who voted for him, and that those who did not can choose to not recognize his presidency?
Clearly his talk of contemplation is just hot air, with nothing to back it up. Only through honest contemplation and introspection can one expect to win the respect of others. A leader who is capable of only seeing the faults of others has little credibility.
This should serve as a warning to the DPP to avoid making the same mistakes as Ma. If it wants to retain public support, the party review needs to start by asking how the DPP can do better next time.
Perhaps it would help to characterize party organization as a series of concentric circles.
After four years as DPP chairperson, dominating its direction and use of resources, Tsai has a great deal of power and so finds herself at the center of the first circle. In the second circle we find those closest to the center of power. The people in the third circle have less power, and as the circles grow in size, so the access to power and influence diminishes.
Based on the idea that there should be a balance between power and responsibility, most people would accept that the more power you have, the more responsibility you must accept.
If the DPP is to draw any lessons from its defeat — particularly as it appeared to have a good chance of winning at one point — it needs a foundation on which to continue to build for the future.
If the party fails to take advantage of this opportunity, then the next election is likely to end the same way. In order to move forward, the DPP must start over again.
A few days ago, Tsai said that the responsibility for the electoral defeat was hers, and there can be little doubt as to the truth of that statement — after all, who else is to blame?
Ma was elected with 51.6 percent of the vote, which means that 48.4 percent of voters did not vote for him. Despite this, and the fact that his second term has not even started yet, he is already displaying a winner-takes-all attitude.
Although there is no longer any hope that he will bring about reform over the next four years, in the wake of the elections political parties have started to discuss changes to the legislative electoral system and a rare cross-party consensus is taking shape. Even KMT members have criticized the inheritance of political power and the unequal value of ballots.
Ma alone insists that a constitutional amendment is of no urgency, making it clear that he is more interested in consolidating his own power than democracy. Only someone devoid of values and ideals could hold such a narrow view.
The country has been handed to a power-hungry party with no concern for public opinion, leaving it at a critical crossroads. How can the DPP not do everything in its power to remedy this situation?
Four years ago, the KMT defeated the DPP by more than 2 million votes. Last month, that deficit was reduced to less than 800,000 votes. The DPP must not wait another four years before it starts to compete for power again; it must start today.
Although the DPP is understandably in an introspective mood as it sets about analyzing the reasons for its defeat, it is imperative that it continues to engage the public in a dialogue.
Most people do not want to hear excuses, or attempts to shirk responsibility or take credit. The DPP must admit its mistakes and apologize for failing to live up to the expectations of its supporters if it wants to win greater public support.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS