 |
| A political caricature of the United States Senate from 1894 Credit Library of Congress |
Taiwan’s Presidential election looms, putting an end to Tsai Ing-wen’s eight years at the helm.
While the political cycle appears to continue normally, I find myself increasingly puzzled and worried by the machinations going on within both global and Taiwan politics.
The madness of tens of thousands of deaths in Ukraine and thousands dead in Israel and Gaza, to the craziness of the Trump trials in the United States and the bitter internal battles within the Republican Party to the disintegration of the British Conservative Party and their equally bitter internal battles, it would be easy to believe diplomacy and common-sense has left the building.
After the horrors of World War Two, one would be forgiven that just a generation later we are slowly sinking back to the bad old days, rather than progressing and building a better world for everyone.
Add to this unprecedented weather events and a continued disbelief by many that man-assisted global warming actually exists to anti-oil protestors blocking roads in many countries and causing chaos, to anti-woke and anti-immigrant right-wing groups finding a greater voice, it’s hard to remain optimistic as we head into 2024.
If nothing else, for those of us who keep an eye on global geo-politics 2024 will be an ‘interesting’ year.
I now live quietly on the west bank in Bali so I’m also perhaps more interested in what happens here in Taiwan and what I’m seeing worries me. Is Taiwan moving down a path which will damage its young democracy in tandem with the madness we are witnessing elsewhere in the world?
In my 40 years of front-line reporting of geo-politics around the world, I am watching political battles on this Beautiful Isle that are perhaps unique, in my experience anyway. I’m a long way from being an expert in Taiwan politics but I am fast coming to the conclusion that it has a unique quirkiness, although I can’t decide whether that is a strength, or a weakness. Is it pragmatic, or just daft with little political acumen behind it?
For whatever reason, my wife Joyce generally chooses to relay the blow-by-blow latest political goings-on when we get in the car. While driving I receive a running commentary on the latest progress, or, more often the lack of it. Oftentimes it makes little sense and certainly doesn’t jive with my experiences elsewhere in the world.
The latest news which made me sit up and listen a little harder was ex-Policeman Plod and erstwhile New Taipei City Mayor saying he would be happy if he does not achieve his goal of becoming Taiwan’s eighth President and would instead be happy as deputy.
This is almost shockingly absurd for someone pushed forward by his party for the top job to then turn around and tell them he doesn’t really want it and would be happy to lose out to someone else from another party.
I wonder what the KMT party managers’ opinion of this was? Kuomintang, founded in November 1894 and a major political party in the Republic of China, initially based on the Chinese mainland and then in Taiwan since 1949 appears not to be bothered about regaining the Taiwan Presidency? How sad is that? Such a long established political party appears happy to commit political suicide by openly stating it is no longer seeking the highest office and willing to hand over decades of governance to, er, a party less than five years old.
Maybe it’s an astute political move but I’m afraid that thinking is lost to me and I am genuinely puzzled unless Hou Yu-ih is somehow actively trying to destroy the KMT’s political credibility from within.
In my humble opinion such self-destruction would be no bad thing for Taiwan, particularly against the background of overt Mainland aggression and the danger of a Beijing takeover via a China friendly administration. To openly say this less than three months before the election you have all but given up makes zero political sense unless there is no fight left in the KMT and it is happy to retire from front-line politics and wither and die.
How are voters expected to react? Voting for someone to be President who has openly stated he is not bothered if he becomes President or not, is surely a wasted vote. I’d be extremely angry if I were a party member to be let down so badly and be told ‘sorry guys we can’t really be bothered and are happy if another party wins the Presidency’.
He is frightened of the job and thinks he cannot do it is the one obvious conclusion. He is unsure, or disagrees with KMT policies and thinks another President can better help run the country, is quite another. Either one points to massive weakness within the KMT and a huge whack of self-doubt seldom seen among high-level politicians.
I’m more used to those seeking high office to do whatever it takes to get the job and implement their policies for what they believe is the betterment of the country as a whole. The problem generally arises around those hell-bent on achieving high office and then screwing things up, evidenced by the last four British Prime Ministers.
To roll over and admit he is just not that bothered, Hou Yu-ih demonstrates a weakness and lack of conviction and that he is likely frightened of the job. Clearly the KMT chose their candidate extremely poorly. Terry Gou can at least string a sentence together.
What will Hou Yu-ih campaign slogan be in the coming weeks as the competition hots up? What will he yell from the platform at rallies? “Don’t vote for me as someone else will be a better President than me, I’m really not bothered either way” Will the party faithful punch the air and scream “Yes, don’t vote KMT as someone else can likely do it better than our candidate.”
It’s all very puzzling and, not to put too fine a point on it, ridiculous in the game of democratic politics.
I’d be the first to admit that bipartisanship can be a good thing when high-level policies need to be enacted and there are many examples where opposition parties stop just criticising the government and vote with them for sensible and pragmatic reasons. It happens all the time to the good of ordinary people.
Maybe we are at a point in Taiwan where the opposition parties simply oppose and criticise government policy because in their Dummy’s Guide to Politics it says that’s what they should always do.
I have to say I perceive few actual solid and workable or affordable policies coming from the opposition parties and most seem to be badly costed or just pie-in-the-sky wishes which will never happen, like a 1 million TWD subsidy for the third child, or a 230 billion TWD long-term care fund.
What I see is apparently blind, constant criticism and gaslighting on pretty much every issue and an avoidance of the really big issues, like the Elephant in the room, China.
For the 120-year old KMT with 38 seats in a legislature of 113 total, to roll-over to an upstart four-year old TPP which has five, would be an amazing event which must have the DPP with 62 seats feeling quietly confident as long as these two oppositions continue to bicker, moan and whine, and continue to fail to come with with any credible policies of their own.
Already the embryo tie up is descending into farce if the latest batch of statements from both the KMT and TPP are anything to go by.
Political coalitions, of course, exist in many countries and can be successful but most coalitions are made after voting takes place in order for the bigger party to secure a governing majority ie. The David Cameron UK Conservative 2010 coalition administration with the Liberal Democrats where its leader Nick Clegg served as deputy Prime Minister. It was actually a disaster, but that’s another story.
Pre-Electoral Coalitions in Presidential Systems such as being vaunted by the KMT and TPP do exist, particularly in South America, but tend to be problematic because parties cannot use pre-electoral coalitions to secure money, patronage or government benefits under the control of presidents as they cannot be held accountable to the previous party agreements.
This would seem to be the situation which is uncomfortably unfolding in Taiwan where negativity in the form of hurting a popular existing administration takes precedence over positive policies aimed at convincing the electorate that their vote will be worthwhile. Does such a stance demonstrate a willingness to improve things, or just a blind aim to destroy a political adversary by fair means or foul with no real regard to the consequences?
The furtherance of actual stated policies would not seem to be high on the agenda for the opposition as I detect little in the way of manifesto promises at this stage outside of openly criticising everything the current administration do or say… and an unhealthy obsession with high-end vaccines and eggs.
No comments:
Post a Comment