Concluding the large “Fury” (火大) protest in Taipei on Jan. 13, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairman Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) announced plans to seek the recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators who have “failed to listen to the voice of the people” and possibly President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
Such an effort, though deriving from justifiable anger at the Ma administration’s less-than-stellar performance on a variety of fronts, cannot serve as a stand-in for actual policy alternatives on the opposition’s part.
In fact, the recall of officials, which the smaller Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) has since said it would support, is a non-policy that, if mishandled, could undermine the democratic foundations of this country and end up hurting the opposition’s image.
Aside from making the DPP and TSU sound bitter for failing to secure more seats in last year’s legislative elections, recall plans set a precedent that could come back to haunt them in future. Most problematic is how one defines a legislator’s failure to “listen to the voice of the people” — and who gets to do so.
Although the “recall list” has yet to be unveiled, it has already become clear that the DPP’s definition of “failure” coincides perfectly with a target’s opposition to DPP policies. In other words, DPP policies and “the people” are one and the same, though the extent to which the people will have input in the recall decisions remains to be seen.
There is undeniable danger in a political party resorting to undemocratic tactics — however much one resents the policies adopted by some KMT legislators, those legislators were elected by the public — to solve problems. Unless a legislator has actually broken the law or it has demonstrated that he or she is undermining national security through his or her actions, their removal, much as that of government officials, should be conducted through democratic procedures. This is why elections are held on a regular basis, so that voters can use their retributive powers to remove the bad weeds.
By seeking to work around the system, and by having final say as to which legislators pass muster and which do not, the DPP and the TSU arrogate upon themselves powers that share too many attributes with authoritarianism for comfort.
And in the end, even if the opposition succeeded in removing reprobate legislators, they would find themselves in the same position as insurrectionists who, after toppling a loathed government or political system, are then responsible for running the country. Removing governments is the easy part; governing a nation is where the real challenge lies and for that, one needs a viable alternative in the form of policies that appeal to the public and that can be implemented.
Opposition for the sake of opposition, or the even more drastic removal of elected officials, falls short of meeting public expectations and by no means ensures that come the next elections, the opposition will be able to secure the votes it needs to make progress within the system.
The DPP is perfectly justified in mobilizing against the Ma administration and the KMT, as opinion polls attest to sky-high discontent with their performance. However, channeling that discontent is itself insufficient to turn the DPP and its allies into a political force to be reckoned with, and one that Taiwanese will be willing to give another shot at running the country.
What is needed, above all, lies in the realm of ideas, of strategies to appeal to the polity on both sides of the divide and to the ever-crucial middle ground. So far, Su has failed on that count.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has created a dilemma that could soon cause him to be hoisted with his own petard, bringing his leadership of China to an end. His threatening rhetoric over the unification of Taiwan with China, in which he has said, “we are willing to draw blood if necessary,” has placed Xi in a corner. Xi is portrayed as a strong world leader, yet he has created a scenario for himself that most likely would have an unfavorable outcome. With the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) scheduled to convene this month, Xi cannot
I was privileged to meet with many of Taiwan’s leaders and leading thinkers during a study tour visit in August. One theme I heard several times during that trip was that bad relations between the United States and China benefit Taiwan. At first thought, I empathize with the argument. After all, there is a troubling record of America’s leaders negotiating with Beijing over the heads of Taiwan’s leaders. For example, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt returned Taiwan to China after World War II. President Richard Nixon surprised Taiwan leaders with his 1972 trip to China. President Jimmy Carter unilaterally chose to normalize
Washington’s “one China” policy has not changed and the US does not take a position on Taiwan’s sovereignty issue, a US Department of State spokesperson has said. He said that this has been the principle of US policy toward Taiwan since 1979, and the policy has remained in effect. He also said that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has privately made this clear to Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅). The US’ “one China” policy and China’s “one China” principle recognize China as the “representative of China.” The two diverge on the issue of Taiwan: Beijing asserts sovereignty
I live in Taiwan because, like many foreigners, I fell in love with and chose to align my life with a Taiwanese. In an era where personal freedoms are mandatorily ceded to government decree, I am thankful to the Taiwanese government for the spousal visa, as well as the lack of demeaning bureaucratic hoops and hurdles needed to get a work permit, residency permit and healthcare. However, if I then choose to attempt citizenship, this enlightened attitude spasms to seizure, culminating in what appears to be blatant xenophobia. In contrast to Western countries, the path to citizenship mandates a protracted period