An organization is not a person, except perhaps in the legal fiction sense. It has no individual consciousness or will. It exists only so long as people choose to participate in it for some reason.
The KMT once served a purpose for those involved in it. That purpose had entirely to do with power, and mostly with the political sort of power.
From a political point of view, a two-party system is the endpoint of a democracy’s evolution. If the DPP dominates, something must oppose it. If there’s a vacuum on the other side, that vacuum will be filed by something. Can the KMT function as the linchpin of an effective opposition coalition? If so, how? If not, there are other possibilities. Some minor party could rise to second place, or the DPP could split from the internal conflicts that naturally bubble to the surface after all external threats are out of the way.
(And if the DPP screws up, something must replace it in power. In a two-party system, the two parties switch places from time to time. But there are always two players. The DPP is one. Another must exist.)
If the KMT can’t function as a meaningful political party, what’s left for it? What will motivate its members to keep it going? It controls some financial resources. Perhaps it could function as a cartel or a mafia or some such? What if the new government doesn’t let that happen?
Maybe it could become a social fraternity, like the Shriners or the Rotary club. Guanxi and ritual and business contacts. They’ll need some goofy hats and some songs.
It could continue to fight for what’s best for the citizens of the Republic of China. Or as Commonwealth countries put it in their monarchy*: the Loyal Opposition.
*If the ROC was a monarchy, which it isn’t. Huzzah!
I agree with the notion that a democracy works best when there is a functional and credible opposition. My sense is that notwithstanding the 2014 and 2016 electoral losses, there are still many Taiwanese who support the KMT and believe in large portions of its platform. Like any party that has suffered an electoral rebuke, the KMT will have to consider if such loss represents a rejection of any of its core beliefs, and if so should the party then work on trying to better explain and convince voters of the benefits of the party position, or should the party change its position to be more in line with what the voters want. Ultimately, the voters will pick whether the KMT, NPP, DPP or some combination of other parties is a viable Loyal Opposition.
Both the DPP and KMT have had to recalibrate and adjust their policy positions over the last 30 years. On the big picture China question, the DPP went from the Full TI party to a “status quo”/TI Light party. Simultaneously, the KMT went from the Reconquest party to a 92C/TI Light (mostly) party. It will be interesting to see if and how the KMT recalibrates in coming years, and likewise for the DPP when (like any party) they inevitably lose support at some future point.
If it turns out that the Taiwanese electorate consistently rejects “Chinese nationalism” (I don’t believe they have yet), I wonder if one can have a KMT that doesn’t espouse “Chinese nationalism”? Eventually the Old Veterans will completely pass from power, and the remaining KMT will be left with a tough choice.
If it turns out that the Taiwanese electorate consistently rejects “Chinese nationalism” (I don’t believe they have yet), I wonder if one can have a KMT that doesn’t espouse “Chinese nationalism”? Eventually the Old Veterans will completely pass from power, and the remaining KMT will be left with a tough choice.[/quote]
KMT’s winning platform from 2008 to 2012 wasn’t “Chinese nationalism.” Those who voted for KMT for the reason of Chinese nationalism weren’t large enough in numbers to carry the outcome of the elections.
People voted because MYJ said that he was open to TI if that’s what the people wanted, and stressed that his main focus would be the economy. MYJ and KMT kept repeating that they were pro-business and not pro-China. However, after being left fully in control of the government for 8 years, that sadly turned out to be a lie. They were pro-China, and pro-business alright, but they weren’t interested in improving the economy of the average people. MYJ’s main focus was for the numbers to look as if Taiwan is doing great, by funnelling money into the pockets of the wealthiest few.
If it turns out that the Taiwanese electorate consistently rejects “Chinese nationalism” (I don’t believe they have yet), I wonder if one can have a KMT that doesn’t espouse “Chinese nationalism”? Eventually the Old Veterans will completely pass from power, and the remaining KMT will be left with a tough choice.[/quote]
KMT’s winning platform from 2008 to 2012 wasn’t “Chinese nationalism.” Those who voted for KMT for the reason of Chinese nationalism weren’t large enough in numbers to carry the outcome of the elections.
People voted because MYJ said that he was open to TI if that’s what the people wanted, and stressed that his main focus would be the economy. MYJ and KMT kept repeating that they were pro-business and not pro-China. However, after being left fully in control of the government for 8 years, that sadly turned out to be a lie. They were pro-China, and pro-business alright, but they weren’t interested in improving the economy of the average people. MYJ’s main focus was for the numbers to look as if Taiwan is doing great, by funnelling money into the pockets of the wealthiest few.[/quote]
There is a certain school of thought within the Chinese Nationalist (or Patriots) community that the equalizing disposable incomes of both sides of the strait would kill off the appetite for Taiwan Independence. A natural extension of that logic is once the “lower class” street vendors of Taiwan take Chinese tourists’ money, Taiwanese people would realize that their previous impression that the Chinese were poor would vanish. Ma’s entire 8 years of rule follows this philosophy, but this social experiment ultimately failed because the logic depends too much on a subjective mindset.
False. Taiwanese are thinking it, but Taiwanese politicians just can’t say it.
How’s this for a true statement: when KMT supporters talk about TI, they aren’t talking about a Republic of China.[/quote]
Just my guess, but I’d conjecture that about 30% of Taiwanese mean a ROT, another 30% means a sovereign ROC that forswears any kind of United China, and another 30% means a sovereign ROC with a vague possibility of future unification with a democratic China. The remaining 10% are amenable to some kind of unification with the PRC in a nearer time and a small handful are okay w/1C2S.
Of course to the CCP, any kind of ROT or sovereign ROC are all just shades of TI.
I grew up in the US. And I do answer Chinese. I am from the Republic of China. It’s not uncommon for those of my generation. Had the PRC of previous generations been less arrogant (or the Generalissimo been less stubborn), I believe that many people on Taiwan would consider themselves Chinese in the same way that North and South Korea consider themselves Korean. It’s truly ironic that it was the Chiang’s that helped the Taiwanese identity to grow after the Japanese tried to extinguish it.