According to the Mandarin Chinese version of Wikipedia, a political party is “an organized group of people formed with the goal of implementing, advancing or protecting specific political ideas or interests... Political parties usually have specific political goals and ideologies, and an agenda on a range of national and societal issues.”
Since political parties are organized groups, they cannot exist with just one member. A so-called “one-man band” party does not mean a party made up of only one person, nor does it mean a “ghost party.”
As a bare minimum, it must include a chairperson, deputy chairperson, secretary and deputy secretary, but often also includes a small army of spokespeople responsible for each policy area, and a central or executive committee.
During elections, political parties extol the virtues of their selected candidates, and occasionally, a handful are thanked for their troubles by the electorate and are voted into office.
The unique quality of a one-man band party is that, at some point in the party’s life — perhaps from its very inception — its chairperson assumes the role for life and the party is molded in their image.
The chairperson is synonymous with the party. Whenever a person mentions the party, one immediately thinks of its chairperson and whenever a person mentions the name of its chairperson, one instantly thinks of the party.
As for the party’s annual conference, almost nobody outside the party knows or is in the least bit interested in when it is held or how many members are to attend. Even the chairperson might be sketchy on the details.
Over a nine-year-and-10-month period, the New Party’s National Executive Committee had 12 people who served as conveners during a total of 10 sessions. During that time, nobody called it a one-man band.
However, when Yok Mu-ming (郁慕明) became its 10th convener, he seamlessly pirouetted to the role of party chairman. This turned into a second term as chairman and a third, until on Feb. 21, he became the party’s “honorary chairman” and the chairmanship passed on to former Kinmen County deputy commissioner Wu Cheng-tien (吳成典).
There is another “new party” that has had one person ensconced in the position of party chairman for 18 straight years: The People’s First Party (PFP) and its chairman, James Soong (宋楚瑜).
Yok’s and Soong’s parties are both classic one-man band parties. Both started out aggressively, but turned out to be a flash in the pan, unable to alter the political climate in Taiwan.
The New Party hit its peak in the December 1995 legislative elections, but declined thereafter as its constituency began to shrink. It was soon marginalized.
The PFP began to lose momentum after 2001, and it has gone from bad to worse over the years. Its most talented individuals have been poached and it has had no energy to fight back.
One-person parties lack marketability.
Last year, Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) formed the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP): a quasi-one-man band party.
There are two possible outcomes for the TPP: It will either become trapped in the bubble of a one-man party, or will grow into a pivotal new force in Taiwanese politics.
It all depends on whether the party is able to avoid being led down the blind alley of a one-leader, perpetual chairmanship under Ko.
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired associate professor of National Hsinchu University of Education.
Translated by Edward Jones
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 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
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
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the
RSS