German Chancellor Angela Merkel just announced her run for a fourth consecutive term and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has started efforts to extend his term to 2021. Both are facing major domestic and external problems, in particular stimulating their economies. Looking at their political achievements in terms of hard figures, there is cause for concern. Still, their attempts to extend their leadership have met with strong support.
If Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union wins the election in fall next year, she would match former German chancellor Helmut Kohl’s 16-year term in office, and if Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party wins the 2018 election, Abe would be the longest-serving Japanese prime minister since World War II, ruling Japan for 10 years and breaking Japan’s run of short-term Cabinets that has lasted since the 1990s. Either would be of profound significance for any democratic country.
Do Merkel and Abe have anything in common in how they lead their countries? Merkel in September last year announced a policy to take in Middle Eastern refugees, which has led to a huge financial burden due to their slow entry into the labor market and it has also had effects on social order. As a result, her approval ratings have dropped and she has lost voters.
Abe is not doing much better. Although more than 80 percent of Japanese opposed a security law allowing the Japan Self-Defense Forces to engage in foreign military conflicts and thousands of people took to the streets in protest, it was passed by the Japanese parliament last year. Although the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, finalized in February, was strongly opposed by Japanese farmers and boycotted by Japan’s Democratic Party, Abe persisted and the Japanese House of Representatives approved it in a vote this month, submitting it to the Japanese House of Councilors for deliberation.
Merkel and Abe have made decisions ignoring public opinion, so why do a majority of voters continue to support their bids to extend their terms in office? In a survey conducted by polling company Emnid last week, 55 percent of respondents supported Merkel’s re-election bid, despite an August poll by the organization showing that 50 percent of respondent opposed her re-election. In Japan, an NHK poll last week showed that Abe’s approval stands at 55 percent.
Perhaps support for their strong leadership is related to external factors, as US president-elect Donald Trump’s victory is affecting the international framework. However, the main factor changing public opinion is probably the charisma the two have displayed through their ability to make decisions and stick to their values in the face of crisis, which has made them stand out in their own countries.
When you think you are right, “you should go for it, even if 10 million people stand in your way,” a Chinese saying goes. This is the quality a leader of any organization must have, but it does not mean acting without considering the consequences. Rather, it means taking concrete action when addressing a problem.
For example, Germany has been discussing raising its retirement age to 69 years to relieve financial pressure, and Japan has passed an agricultural white paper to increase exports of agricultural, aquatic and food products and to turn small farmers into an aggressive army of agricultural talent to boost their confidence in opening markets.
If national leaders do not make decisions or have a “Plan B” for controversial issues, but just allow the public to discuss and decide issues in referendums, then anyone can play the role of negotiator, and once leaders are perceived as being overly cautious, unwilling to take responsibility and unable to make decisions, they will not be able to win public respect or build authority.
Lessons can learned from the examples of others. In Taiwan, opinion polls have repeatedly shown that a majority of respondents favor national pension reform. The call for reform had already been issued during former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) presidency, long before President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) took office. However, the government insists on delaying this controversial issue until next year and refuses to simplify the process, despite advice from the outside world.
The public will have to decide if this is a good government.
The long debate on public holidays and workweek hours shows that the government lacks cross-ministerial integration and is incapable of coming up with a comprehensive plan. What a waste of its legislative majority. In short, it does not dare take action.
As a result of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) stubbornness and refusal to communicate through eight years of wrongheaded policies, the public expressed its opinion and kicked the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) out of office, while at the same time demanding that the Tsai administration adopt effective measures based on clear public opinion. If the government gives up its responsibility to lead because it wants voters to express their opinions yet again before making a decision, then what was the point of the Jan. 16 elections?
Absolute rule means absolute responsibility. The government should display the leadership and efficiency that is expected of a government. A winning finish is more important than a strong start.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
RSS