Sat, Dec 27, 2014 page8

• Presidential system has its merits

  • By Chiang Huang-Chih 姜皇池
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  When I was young, we often had to shout the slogan: “Long live the president.” With the nation’s democratization, we no longer shout the slogan and now simply cheer for the president.

  One of the reasons the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) suffered a major defeat in last month’s local elections is that the president, under the current constitutional system, exercises power without accountability. New Taipei City Mayor Eric Chu (朱立倫) has proposed changing the current presidential system of government to a parliamentary one. Legislators, who have the power to call for constitutional amendments, are eager for such a change, as they would then no longer be barred from serving concurrently as Cabinet officials. It seems that the timing for a constitutional amendment has come.

  There is no doubt that the Constitution is flawed and that changes are needed. However, judging from the nation’s special domestic and international political and economic situation, doing away with the semi-presidential system in favor of a parliamentary system requires further consideration.

  First, abandoning a presidential system would be unfavorable to Taiwan’s sovereignty. In the eyes of some constitutional experts, the concept of the president as a symbol of sovereignty is groundless and not worth refuting. For most countries that have adopted a parliamentary system, some of which even have a foreigner as their head of state — such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, whose head of state is the British queen — the system does not hurt their status as independent states. The parliamentary system therefore does not affect their sovereignty.

  This view is absolutely reasonable in any normal independent state, but Taiwan is different. Since Taiwan has never claimed independent statehood separate from China, but instead has proven its independent statehood through actions that highlight its sovereignty, direct presidential elections are highly significant.

  No Taiwanese who experienced the 1996 presidential election will ever forget the tough statement made by then-Chinese premier Zhu Rongji (朱鎔基), who threatened that whoever promoted Taiwanese independence would suffer miserably in the end, as Beijing almost equated direct presidential elections with a declaration of independence.

  Despite China’s verbal attacks and military threats, Taiwanese cast their ballots and declared to the international community that Taiwan does not belong to China and that it would elect its own president. If Taiwan were to withdraw this powerful declaration due to some systematic flaws, that would hurt its national sovereignty.

  Second, in terms of democratic representation, direct presidential elections are much more representative of mainstream opinion than legislative elections. Government statistics show that voter turnout during past presidential elections was 76 percent in 1996, 82.69 percent in 2000, 80.28 percent in 2004, 76.33 percent in 2008 and 74.38 percent in 2012, while turnout for legislative elections was lower. Replacing the presidential system with a Cabinet system composed of lawmakers would therefore mean abolishing a system that has a higher degree of democratic representation.

  Third, domestic conditions and public feelings should be taken into consideration. Taiwan is used to having a leader, as society expects strong leadership from a national leader. A president elected at the national level, who, thanks to the presidential system, has the largest public support base, is capable of suppressing or coordinating various political forces when necessary.

  If Taiwan were to abolish the presidential system, the central government would be composed of legislators from different electoral constituencies representing different interest groups, and each legislator-turned-Cabinet member would be on the lookout for his own electoral constituency and interest groups. Moreover, these Cabinet members would have to deal with local government heads who have a greater support base than themselves. This would make comprehensive national planning difficult and the nation would be fragmented due to opposing interests.

  Fourth, from a subjective perspective, for the past 18 years since the first direct presidential election was held in 1996, a presidential election every four years has more or less given voters a sense of being their own master. Abandoning direct presidential elections and allowing Cabinet members and political parties to make the decision for the public would almost be like returning to the era of indirect presidential elections. All past efforts and sacrifices would be erased. This does not sound right.

  It is undeniable that the current presidential system is flawed, and the provision for the system of government under the Constitution is indeed questionable. However, what is needed is to increase presidential accountability so that it matches the president’s power, instead of abolishing the system altogether.

  This is just like a suit that does not fit: Would it be better to buy a new suit or try to alter the original one? The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that a presidential system is better than a parliamentary system.

  Chiang Huang-chih is a professor of international law at National Taiwan University.

  Translated by Eddy Chang
• Most Popular

  • 1

    China reserves offshore airspace for 40 days without explanation: WSJ

  • 2

    Danish envoys’ privileges revoked over naming controversy

  • 3

    Eight million barrels of oil to set sail for Taiwan this month

  • 4

    Foreign exchange reserves fall below US$600 billion

  • 5

    Universities neglect to warn students of China danger: MOE