The voter turnout for Saturday’s presidential election was a respectable 71 percent, but still 3 percent less than four years ago.
Although this election was crucial, it was not as crucial as some outsiders might have thought. Taiwanese had their finger on the pulse of what the nation’s diverse needs were and how they could best be met.
Four basic takeaways explain this:
The first takeaway is the presidency. The victory of the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) candidate, Vice President William Lai (賴清德), was a major change from the past. The nation stayed with the DPP after eight years, despite China’s intimidation attempts and despite Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) garnering 26.46 percent of the vote.
The DPP broke the pattern of alternating party presidencies. Lai broke this tradition of voters alternating trust with one party and then the other. Lai’s victory marks three consecutive terms for the DPP with the possibility of four.
However. the day did not completely end in the DPP’s favor. While this was a great start, Lai won with only 40.05 percent of the vote. The Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate, New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜), followed with 33.49 percent. Both parties lost votes due to Ko’s participation in the election, which was a game changer, particularly in the Legislative Yuan.
Understanding the Legislative Yuan vote is the second takeaway. In it, the DPP lost 10 seats and the majority it had held for the past eight years, dropping from 61 to 51 seats out of the 113-seat legislature. This was the first time in the past 16 years that the party holding the presidency could not count on having a legislative majority.
It is not the end of the world for the DPP, but it means it might have to do some horse-trading. However, while the KMT gained seats, it also only has 52 seats plus the two independent legislators who align with it. No party won 57 seats — a legislative majority. Therefore, the TPP, which garnered eight seats, could become a kingmaker, depending on which party it teams up with to name the speaker of the legislature.
However, the TPP’s position is also not that strong. It only gained three seats, and those were from the party vote. The TPP had no individually elected district candidates.
This imbalance is not the same one that former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) faced in 2000 and 2004 when the KMT and the People First Party (PFP) united against him in a pan-blue opposition. Nonetheless, the TPP has bargaining power; it could help either the DPP or the KMT to name the speaker.
This leads to the third takeaway: the role of third parties in Taiwanese politics.
Taiwan has not lacked in having three or more parties running in elections. These parties rise to meet and express certain needs, but they lack sustainability. The past is littered with the fallen bodies of such parties. Taiwan has seen the rise and fall of the New Party, the PFP, the Taiwan Solidarity Union and the New Power Party (NPP), to name a few.
This is what the TPP and other third parties face. Compare Ko’s 26.46 percent of the vote with PFP Chairman James Soong’s (宋楚瑜) 36.84 percent when running as an independent when he almost won the 2000 election. Soong went on to form the PFP, which played a dominant role, but his party eventually faded. He could not build a long-standing team and this proved to be the case where if you strike the shepherd, the sheep would scatter.
I do not expect the TPP to survive the next presidential election in 2028.
Moreover, if one looks at the popular party vote for the legislature, the DPP added more than 150,000 votes to its popular vote in 2020, and the KMT gained about 60,000 votes over the same period. They both maxed out, naming 13 legislators-at-large.
So where did the eight TPP legislators-at-large come from? It had five legislators-at-large; it only gained three more. This time, the losers of the popular vote were the NPP and the Taiwan Statebuilding Party.
Taiwan is in need of third parties and they constantly rise to express the needs of the moment, but none have taken hold.
This leads to the final takeaway: the role of China. Despite its threats and bullying, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) did not influence this year’s elections as much as it hoped. Its time would be better spent trying to solve its own growing problems of economic downturn, corruption and despotism.
Even with the good weather, voter turnout in Taiwan dropped slightly, and Taiwanese put more trust in the DPP in dealing with the PRC. Taiwanese were satisfied with the “status quo” and their de facto independence. There are more pressing needs than saying the dreaded “I” word: Independence.
The KMT sensed this and did not invite pro-unification former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to speak at its final pre-election rally. His speaking would have only put another nail in the party’s coffin. What the KMT still lacks is the ability to forgo mentioning the fake “1992 consensus.”
With the temporary acceptance of the TPP, Taiwanese were saying that they wanted the DPP to figure out a way to foster trade with China, while keeping it at arm’s length.
I voted in this election and all in all, it proved to be a satisfying day. There were no dominant winners. The DPP learned that it needs to work harder to maintain viable district legislators. The KMT is learning to abandon its pro-unification jargon. The TPP needs to do its homework if it expects to survive. I still do not think it will; its members would only morph into another need of the nation as it progresses.
Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei.
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
RSS