中文在下方
In many countries there exists a group of dominant people who, for various reasons, consider themselves to be natural born leaders and, for some amorphous reason, should be running things. Taiwan is no exception.
The collective noun for such groups is ‘The Establishment’ a term first coined in the 1950s by British journalist Henry Fairlie, who said, “By the Establishment, I do not only mean the centres of official power, though they are certainly part of it, but rather the whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised. The exercise of power in the United Kingdom cannot be understood unless it is recognized that it is exercised socially.”
It is a term that has since slipped into common parlance, particularly in the media. In the United Kingdom the establishment is sharply defined and easy to identify. If you asked pretty much anyone in the UK, including teenagers or those even younger, who ‘The Establishment’ was they will tell you it means the Royal Family, the landed gentry (dukes, earls, lords and suchlike), and some might include the police and the army. Others might also add in lawyers, industrialists, bankers and even church leaders.
If you ask the same people which political party do people in these groups represent, they would say without hesitation The Conservative Party. The Conservative, or Tory, party is very much the political party of the establishment and it is widely known Queen Elizabeth II favours the Conservative party, although she would never express any political opinion publicly.
In the United States it is White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPS) who make up the bulk of the establishment, as they have done since the independence of the colonies after the Revolutionary War and subsequent peace treaty in 1783. Hong Kong has a new establishment which since 1997 has become any pro-Beijing group, many of which are now highly influential, for one reason or another.
Generally speaking, establishment people are richer members of a society and seen as being more self-interested and caring less about the common man.
Establishments in any country wield background power no matter which party is actually in power. In the UK for example, a Labour government would still have to do battle with rich and powerful industrialists, bankers and titled people, who would mostly tend to be on the side of the Conservatives. Study US politics for five minutes and you will see the same is happening there right now with the Democrats and Republicans.
In Taiwan it is easy to see which political party represents ‘The Establishment’. It is Kuomintang, and given they ruled under martial law from 1949 to 1987 it is no real surprise that actions during those years have left a legacy which considerably underpins the political power they wield in terms of who their rich and influential friends are.
However, the establishment does not get its own way all the time, despite the disproportionate amount of background power they wield, and those opposed do get to win elections. As is the case now in Taiwan and the United States.
Britain has fallen back to the establishment Conservatie Party and now has a Prime Minister who is one of the social elite, went to one of the most expensive schools, a top university and is pretty much the poster boy of what an establishment figure is. His cabinet consists of billionaires and broadly the same kind of person he is.
The entrenched privilege of the so-called elite means they not only have background influence via their friends, families and network of like-minds, but they also tend to display an arrogance that they are the ones who should control things. This attitude largely built on money and that background existing influence. It is one of the main reasons political parties in opposition to establishment parties have to be smarter and work harder in office.
One theme that runs true when an establishment party is in opposition is in the nature of the way they behave. Often they will criticize the incumbent administration’s actions without coming up with ideas or policies of their own. This is evident in the US at the moment with the Republicans, and the KMT do this all the time.
I struggle to remember a statement from the KMT which first criticized something the DPP were doing and then immediately came up with a counter policy or suggestion of how things should be done differently.
They, like the Republicans, seem devoid of any real policies aside from broad sweeping statements which really amount to little more than “Well, we would just do a much better job”.
The elitist arrogance shines through with many statements the KMT makes about current government policy. It is a similar picture with Eric Chew’s planned visit to the United States.
Considering themselves to be historically in tune with the US as well as a good friend for so many years, it is likely he expects to receive a warm welcome. One wonders if it will be a case as it seems more likely they will say “Well yes, but that was then, and this is now”. I’m sure the KMT’s recent opposition to US pork imports will not be forgotten simply because their referendum failed and the ban never happened.
Being an opposition party is not easy and it would appear the KMT still have not fully got used to the idea even after a term and a half out of power. They simply do not seem to be able to get used to it, or, as the establishment, they feel in the natural course of things they will be running the country again soon, because somehow that is the way it will be and the establishment will always win in the end.
Remember, the KMT did not have to work very hard to win power back from the DPP’s Chen Shui-bian whose popularity collapsed towards the end of his term because of corruption scandals.
When I was a young journalist an older and far more experienced colleague told me…”Remember with elections, a party does not win, the other side loses.” That has been true for many elections I subsequently covered and in most cases it was mistakes that dictated the outcome, not successes.
So the KMT are unused to winning back power from a steady, stable and relatively popular incumbent party, and the learning curve is a steep one for them ahead of the local elections at the end of this year and the Presidential election in two years.
Losing their arrogance and inbuilt assumption that they are the natural leaders has to give way to making themselves more electable by forming solid policies and a stream of ideas so voters actually see them as a credible party. Simply constantly criticizing everything the DPP does will not get them very far.
This is assuming the DDP does not make some huge policy errors in the meantime. Outside of that seemingly remote possibility, the only thing the KMT can do is prove they have new and progressive policies backed up with data and budgets to differentiate them from the incumbents.
Promising to run the country somehow ‘better’ than the other side doesn’t wash with most voters who look for specifics come election time. A manifesto with solid and practical goals, properly planned and budgeted for is what they need to have, not broad and meaningless aims.
It would be refreshing to see some intelligent, well researched and backed-up ideas being put forward, rather than us all having to put up with the constant mud-slinging. Speaking for myself, I find it tedious and boring.
Tinkerty Tonk...
