In December's local elections, the ruling party
suffered a major defeat in northern Taiwan, losing
some strongholds that it had controlled since the
1980s, while some opposition politicians also lost
long-held seats.
On December 3, 2005, two-thirds of Taiwan's eligible voters cast their ballots in Taiwan's "three in one" elections, which combined the elections for county executives and equivalent municipal mayors, and county assemblies and city councils with the polls that would normally have been held in January 2006 for township executives and equivalent mayors.
Most attention focused on the 23 county executive and equivalent municipal mayoral elections. These counties range consider ably in size. Taipei County, the largest, has a population of 3,730,000, while Lienchiang County, which is off the coast of China near Fuzhou City, has only 10,000 people, and Kinmen County, also off the coast of China near Xiamen, has 60,000. These elections did not include Taipei and Kaohsiung municipalities, which have higher "provincial" status and which will conduct their mayoral elections in December 2006.
Inevitably, most attention focused on Taipei County, which encircles the national capital--Taipei City--and has a population almost equal to the combined populations of Taiwan's 12 smallest counties. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) won the previous four county executive elections, though in the 2004 presidential election the "blue" slate of Lien Chan and James Soong won over 53 percent of the vote in the county. Most analysts believed the blue forces--a cross-party alliance principally between the Kuomintang (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP)--had an inherent advantage there. The KMT nominated a former PAP legislator, Chou Hsi-wei, while the DPP nominated Luo Wen-chia, a young Hakka who made his name working for President Chen Shui -bian during the latter's term as mayor of Taipei City from 1994 to 1998.
Other key races took place in Ilan County and Taichung City. The DPP and its predecessor, the dangwai movement, had held Ilan for 24 years, leading President Chen Shui-bian to call the county "sacred democratic land." Chen Ding-nan, who served as Ilan County executive from 1981 to 1989 and later was a legislator as well as minister of justice under President Chen, returned to Ilan to run again for county executive under the DPP banner. Lu Kuo-hua, mayor of Ilan City, obtained the KMT nomination. In Taichung City, young Lin Chia-lung, a former minister of the Government Information Office (GIO), obtained the DPP nomination to run against the KMT incumbent Jason Hu, whose past posts include minister of the GIO, representative (ambassador) to the United States and foreign minister.
After a rough campaign with both sides making many accusations, the KMT won a huge victory. In terms of seats, the KMT won 14 of the 23 county executive and mayoral seats, an increase of five over 2001. The DPP, on the other hand, lost three of the nine seats it won in 2001, retaining only six seats. In terms of votes, the KMT gained 50.96 percent of the vote compared with 35.15 percent in 2001, while the DPP share dropped from 45.27 percent in 2001 to 41.95 percent in 2005. The three remaining county executive seats went to the New Party (a small party aligned with the blue camp) for Kinmen County, the PFP for Lienchiang County, and a former KMT member running as a nonpartisan in Taitung County, where he had been convicted of electoral corruption.
A comparison of the maps of the electoral results in 2001 and 2005 shows two key changes. First, both Taipei and Ilan counties shifted from the DPP to the KMT camp. Second, Yunlin County elected a DPP county executive for the first time. Thus, after the 2005 election, the DPP controls only the six counties south of the Jhuoshuei River in the DPP's green southern heartland (green is the party color of the DPP and also an epithet for a cross-party alliance between the DPP and the Taiwan Solidarity Union). The KMT controls virtually everywhere else in Taiwan.
During the campaign, many commentators discussed how divisions within the parties and splits in the blue and green camps might alter the election results. Despite many splits, only two results appear affected by such internal divisions. In Nantou County, a DPP legislator challenged the incumbent county executive, who ran as a nonpartisan instead of withdrawing from the election. If the votes of the DPP nominee and the incumbent are combined, the DPP would have easily defeated the KMT nominee, but the KMT won the race. Similarly, in Pingtung County, the combined vote of the KMT nominee and a "blue" nonpartisan would have easily defeated the DPP nominee. Thus, each party "lost" one seat owing to internal splits. In all other cases, divisions within camps did not affect the final results.
Explaining the Election Results
In mature democracies, the voters eventually vote the government out and bring the opposition into power. Since President Chen Shui-bian's election to the presidency in 2000 and his re-election in 2004, Taiwan's voters now perceive the DPP to be the ruling party. In some ways this is unfair as the DPP has never controlled the Legislature. Yet the DPP incumbency at the presidential level helps explain the 2005 election results.
First, the DPP (and its dangwai predecessor) was the ruling party in Ilan County for 24 years and in Taipei County for 16 years. This length of incumbency was one important reason for the DPP defeat in these two counties. Similarly, the long KMT incumbency in Yunlin County helps account for the DPP victory there. In this election, one party won only two counties for the fifth consecutive election. The DPP won its fifth straight election in Kaohsiung County, while the KMT won its fifth straight election in Hualien County. In all other counties and municipal equivalents, there has been at least some change in the partisanship of the county executive or mayor.
Second, the corruption issue hit the ruling DPP very hard even though corruption under the KMT had been much worse. Chen Che-nan, a former deputy secretary-general in President Chen Shui-bian's office, lost his position as well as his DPP party member ship and presidential awards because of corruption, but his case badly hurt the DPP in the electorate. This case also tied into the problems with the Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit Corp., which a riot by Thai guest workers in August 2005 had exposed. This also made life for then premier Frank Hsieh--a recent former mayor of Kaohsiung--difficult, though no one ever tied Hsieh to the mass rapid transit corruption.
While campaign discussion of corruption focused on the Chen Che-nan case, voters also complained about corruption at lower levels in the DPP. As the ruling party, the DPP has attracted new elements locally who are more concerned with personal interests rather than party ideals. These people clearly injured the reputation of the DPP and made a mockery of the DPP campaign slogan, "Push Reform, Care for Taiwan."
Despite winning the presidency twice, the DPP remains weak both in terms of votes and organization. Except for the 2004 presidential election, when the ticket of Chen Shui-bian and Annette Lu won 50.11 percent of the vote, the DPP has never won a majority of the vote in any nationwide election. And even in the area of its electoral strength, the southwestern region of Taiwan, the DPP remains weak organizationally.
In Chiayi County, which Chen Shui-bian won with about 50 percent of the vote in 2000 and over 62 percent in 2004, the DPP only won the county executiveship and a majority of assembly seats after an alliance between the DPP and the Lin Faction--a powerful, traditional electoral machine--in late 2001. Even today it remains unclear whether the DPP or the Lin Faction dominates this alliance.
Party identification also remains weak even among politicians. Of the 15 candidates for county executive and the assembly in 2001 in Chiayi County, fully two-thirds had changed party affiliation within the previous two years. And since then some have again changed party. This is a weakness that the DPP must overcome before it can hope to run Taiwan effectively.
The DPP must remember that the purpose of elections is to gain office in order to implement policies. Too often the DPP has seen elections as an end in themselves. Too many times people have gained office only to leave and run in another election. Too many times the president has called for a Cabinet reshuffle. If Chen Ding-nan, for example, had remained minister of justice rather than returning to Ilan to run for county executive, possibly the huge amount of vote-buying in this election would have been reduced. If the 2005 election defeat results in another churning of government and party positions, thus forcing new people to learn these jobs once again, the DPP will have gained nothing from this defeat.
Ultimately, the election results indicate great dissatisfaction among the electorate with President Chen Shui-bian. Chen has received constant, shrill criticism from his opponents ever since his election to the presidency in 2000, but now there is widespread criticism of the president at all levels of the DPP as well. According to a poll published on December 5, 2005, in the United Daily News--a clearly unfriendly source--only 21 percent are satisfied with Chen's performance, the lowest since his presidency began, while 62 percent, the highest ever, are dissatisfied.
According to many sources, Chen's attempts to keep the DPP factions in balance--one of the reasons for the constant churning of personnel--helps explain this dissatisfaction. His frequent changes in policy also create dissatisfaction. Clearly, Chen needs to provide firm policy initiatives that are in the national interest rather than in the interest of the DPP or some factional interests within the DPP.
The Township Executive and County Assembly Elections
On the surface, the DPP did slightly better in the township executive and county assembly elections than in the past. In the township executive and mayoral equivalents, the DPP won a record 23.69 percent of the vote, and in the county assembly and equivalent city council elections the DPP gained 22.25 percent of the vote, another high point. At the same time, however, the KMT won 46.46 percent of the township executive vote and 40.21 percent of the county assembly vote. In fact, as shown below, none of these figures is particularly significant.
My best understanding of these lower-level elections comes from regular research in "Mazu" Township (the name "Mazu" is a pseudonym), a rural area in southern Taiwan where I first lived 35 years ago. Despite Chen Shui-bian winning about half of the Mazu vote in 2000 and 63 percent in 2004, the DPP had developed quite slowly and only made progress when it aligned to a major county faction in 2001. Even then, it remains unclear whether the DPP or the faction deserves credit for various achievements.
These lower-level elections, while having a partisan overlay, remain essentially nonpartisan. Thus, in both 2002 and in the recent elections, the KMT nominee for township executive received substantial and important support from key DPP leaders be cause he had proved competent and refused to buy votes. In contrast, the DPP nominee for township executive in 2005 had run as a nonpartisan in the 2002 county assembly election, when he bought substantial numbers of votes. In addition, he did not help President Chen Shui-bian's 2004 bid for re-election despite promises to do so. And, as a member of the county assembly, he had not helped the county executive.
In the words of one local DPP leader, the DPP nominee belonged to the "watermelon faction," the faction which sought the largest slice for themselves. In addition, the DPP nominee had clear organized-crime connections, though he personally had not been convicted of any crime.
How did this man obtain the DPP nomination for township executive? According to DPP rules, if only one DPP member of two years standing runs for an office, he or she gains the nomination automatically. Clearly this rule requires revision as it tied the hands of local party leaders and nominated a man who clearly did not meet the DPP's vote-buying regulations.
Although, in 2002, the KMT nominee for township executive won easily with substantial informal DPP support and despite his opponent's vote-buying, this time he lost because the DPP nominee bought votes comprehensively. In addition to spending NT$1,000 (US$30) to buy all of the township's votes, on election eve the DPP nominee also spent NT$2,000 and NT$3,000 in selected locations. The KMT candidate lost with 46.41 of the vote despite open support from many key local DPP leaders.
On the surface, the DPP nominee's victory is recorded as a DPP victory. In fact, as suggested above, the candidacies of both candidates brought together people from the KMT and the DPP as well as nonpartisans. Despite its partisan veneer, the election proved similar to the officially nonpartisan local elections in such places as the United States and Australia.
From a historical perspective, perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the December 3, 2005, elections was the extensive buying of votes. Prior to this election, the DPP government had made considerable progress in reducing vote-buying. This time, it appeared that the pressure was off.
Concluding Remarks
In mature democracies, changes in ruling parties occur at reasonable intervals. This election has certainly given the KMT new hope for the presidential and legislative elections due to be held in about two years, though--as new KMT party chairman Ma Ying -jeou has repeatedly stated--the KMT must reform itself in order to survive in Taiwan's new democratic environment. The DPP, on the other hand, must realize that it must transform itself from an electoral machine into a genuine governing party. The unfolding of these processes over the next two years will keep observers of Taiwan's democratic development enthralled.
Bruce Jacobs is professor of Asian languages and studies and director of the Taiwan Research Unit at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.
Copyright (c) 2006 by Bruce Jacobs.
The views expressed by individual authors do not necessarily reflect those of the Taiwan Review.