After observing the immediate aftermath of the Democratic Party’s takeover of the House and Senate in the US midterm elections, I have to say that I admire the foundations of the US political system, especially the institutionalized checks and balances that just brought down Donald Rumsfeld.
The newly elected Democrats of the US Congress expressed their willingness to compromise and find common ground with the Republicans, and to shun the partisanship that hampered governance for the last six years.
Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats even have an agenda on issues like health care insurance, energy independence, and raising the mininum wage. Some members of the new class of 2006 identify with the Republicans on abortion and gun control.
What does Taiwan’s political parties stand for other than national/ethnic identity? What values or policy stances other than independence/reunification do they stand for?
I noticed that Taiwan has the mass rallies, demonstrations, and elections. But once these politicians are elected in office, do they even have a pragmatic agenda to implement or compromise with? Or do they purely know how to get elected into office by slandering the other candidate rather than the candidate’s domestic policy stances? It seems like there is an election in Taiwan every year, with no values or substance to stand for in those elections other than reunification/independence/black gold/corruption.
What else defines the parties’ differences? They are both center-right nationalist parties, one pro-Taiwan, one pro-China. On a remarkable range of policy issues they are in broad agreement. Neither has any plan for Taiwan’s widening income gap and neither of the current policy choices, open to China, or close to China, addresses Taiwan’s future economic growth. The legislators themselves stand for getting $$ to their local areas – but that’s their job. AFAIK there are many talented and honest legislators, and many total shits, pretty much like any legislature anywhere.
It would be nice to move beyond the current impasse. But that would mean the pro-China parties would have to grow up, or the pro-Taiwan ones would have to give in. I don’t see either of those happening soon.
unless there is a completely new party coming in with a more locally active attitude, there will be no change in the next years. The DPP is trying the best they can to level down the KMT, by cutting their assets. The KMT is trying the best they can to go back to power, so their assets won’t be cut, and risking disappearance. If the KMT machine looses all their milky cows, there can be a lot of differences in the next elections. Also, immunity for the legislators means that there won’t be a change in the stance of some people, meaning that they will continue to do press conferences accusing left, right and their mothers of something.
There are a lot of things making impossible for the democracy to evolve in Taiwan, and all those things have to be dealt with before they can imagine having a normal country.
There was actually an article in the Taipei Times recently addressing the need for a third political party. As I understand it, the New Party was originally conceived as a Taiwan-oriented third party alternative to blue and green. However, it was somehow hijacked by Soong and some others into a unification party. I don’t know the details, though - perhaps somebody could clarify…
What else defines the parties’ differences? They are both center-right nationalist parties, one pro-Taiwan, one pro-China. On a remarkable range of policy issues they are in broad agreement. Neither has any plan for Taiwan’s widening income gap and neither of the current policy choices, open to China, or close to China, addresses Taiwan’s future economic growth.
It would be nice to move beyond the current impasse. But that would mean the pro-China parties would have to grow up, or the pro-Taiwan ones would have to give in. I don’t see either of those happening soon.
Michael[/quote]
Michael makes a good point about how both the pan-green and pan-blue camps agree on a broad range of issues. In light of the recent political upheavel, it would be interesting to see if the DPP and KMT evolve in their platforms. Traditionally, in addition to Taiwan independence, the the DPP has appealed to people who consider themselves “Taiwanese”. It also stood for anti KMT corruption … such as the Lafeyette case or the billions NT$ assets the KMT has obtained from objectionable sources. Now that the focus of corruption is on the
“first family” itself and the economy is in shambles partly because fo the DPP government’s incompetence, it would be interesting to see if the DPP can formulate any new issues. How is the DPP to survive ideologically? Might the DPP continue to appeal to independence radicalism, or would they be able to craft new issues for their platforms to attach, in light of Chen’s rent-seeking?
What else defines the parties’ differences? They are both center-right nationalist parties, one pro-Taiwan, one pro-China. On a remarkable range of policy issues they are in broad agreement. Neither has any plan for Taiwan’s widening income gap and neither of the current policy choices, open to China, or close to China, addresses Taiwan’s future economic growth.
It would be nice to move beyond the current impasse. But that would mean the pro-China parties would have to grow up, or the pro-Taiwan ones would have to give in. I don’t see either of those happening soon.
Michael[/quote]
Michael makes a good point about how both the pan-green and pan-blue camps agree on a broad range of issues. In light of the recent political upheavel, it would be interesting to see if the DPP and KMT evolve in their platforms. Traditionally, in addition to Taiwan independence, the the DPP has appealed to people who consider themselves “Taiwanese”. It also stood for anti KMT corruption … such as the Lafeyette case or the billions NT$ assets the KMT has obtained from objectionable sources. Now that the focus of corruption is on the
“first family” itself and the economy is in shambles partly because fo the DPP government’s incompetence, it would be interesting to see if the DPP can formulate any new issues. How is the DPP to survive ideologically? Might the DPP continue to appeal to independence radicalism, or would they be able to craft new issues for their platforms to attach, in light of Chen’s rent-seeking?
There was actually an article in the Taipei Times recently addressing the need for a third political party. As I understand it, the New Party was originally conceived as a Taiwan-oriented third party alternative to blue and green. However, it was somehow hijacked by Soong and some others into a unification party. I don’t know the details, though - perhaps somebody could clarify…[/quote]
In democracies with winner-take-all elective formats, a third party is very difficult to sustain. You would also need to change to some kind of proportional representation. The reduction in the number of legislators will only exacerbate the two-party trend.
The divisions and paralysis in Taiwan’s political system gives the PRC more political leverage over the island, and a higher motivation for military “incentives” against Taiwan. The bickering between the two parties only gives the PRC an excuse to look down on Taiwan’s democracy. The CCP probably thinks “We can do a better job ourselves governing the island!”
If the KMT and DPP can get their acts together and find a moderate common ground, they could reshape Taiwan’s democracy as a model to emulate and admire across the Strait.
I think both parties need to be more proactive in recruiting young, talented individuals who place pragmatism over ideologue, and give them the opportunity to move up the ranks based on meritocracy rather than Blue-Green affiliations.
Or perhaps a new party is more suited for the role.