People now focus on deeper issues, problems that need to be solved as Taiwan's democratic consolidation continues. Many of these are raised in the following three articles. First, participants in a public seminar discuss such concerns as vote sharing, tensions between provincial groups, and the need for better multiparty coordination in the legislature. Second, Justice Minister Ma Ying-jeou outlines the government's efforts to eliminate vote-buying and election bribery. And a third article assesses the changing role (and need for increased quality) of public opinion polls in political campaigns.
Yet another measure of political maturation is the willingness by government and citizens to air political problems openly, for democracy thrives in a free—and freewheeling—atmosphere of public discourse. The following articles are a sample of what Taiwan residents have come to expect as a matter of course from their political system.
On December 4, two days after the 1995 legislative election, the China Times hosted a seminar to discuss what effect the election might have on the conduct of government and on the March 23 presidential election. The three major political parties were represented, as were local and over seas scholars.
The political party participants were James C. Y. Chu (祝基瀅), Kuomintang (KMT) deputy secretary-general; Frank Chang-ting Hsieh (謝長廷), legislator and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) nominee for vice president; and Wang Chien-shien (王建煊), who at that time was the New Party (NP) nominee for president.
The scholars who took part were Hu Fu (胡佛), a professor of political science at National Taiwan University; Chiu Hei yuan (瞿海源), researcher, Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica; Thomas B. Gold, an associate professor of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley; Wakabayashi Masahiro, a history professor at Tokyo University; and Chu Yun-han (朱雲漢), a professor of political science at National Taiwan University. Excerpts follow.
James C.Y. Chu:
This morning I noticed that many foreign newspapers commented favorably on the election. The ruling party is very pleased. The KMT came under unprecedented pressure during the campaign, thanks to the [New Party's] election slogan of "three parties, no outright majority." Moreover, two of our party's [four] deputy chairmen [Lin Yang-kang, former head of the Judicial Yuan, and Hau Pei-tsun, former premier] helped campaign for another party. But we still retained over half of the seats. It's not easy to succeed under such tremendous pressure.
During the campaign, there was no violence in any KMT activities because our appeal to the middle of the road won support. The most serious incident was at the Kaohsiung Grand Hotel. [Some DPP candidates and supporters blockaded the hotel to stop Hau Pei-tsun from campaigning for the New Party.] It was a negative lesson for voters and democracy, and we are sorry about that. But it's very encouraging that the voters in all one-seat districts—Kinmen, Matsu, Penghu, Hualien, and Taitung—voted for us, and we won. This indicated that people want stability.
Many big-name DPP candidates favoring Taiwan independence failed this time around; instead, young and moderate candidates won. It shows that Taiwan independence has been cast aside. Neither did the radical New Party candidates who are strongly anti-President Lee garner much support. Some even lost. This is a healthy phenomenon, and we'd like to see it grow. Some independent candidates who supported Mainland China's stand for "one country, two systems" received less than a thousand votes. This proves that our democracy is moving steadily forward.
Frank Chang-ting Hsieh:
The election outcome has laid the foundation for three-party politics. From now on, the parties should learn to work together and build a consensus to fend off pressure from Mainland China.
The New Party gained the most [in this election], while the KMT, which used to hold 96 of the total 161 seats [in the legislature], won only 85 out of 164 this time. From a long-term view, its power is declining and, as predicted, will continue to do so. As for the DPP, the growth is slight. It's just a small victory and requires some evaluation [to find out why). We would have won more if not for some [inappropriate] nominations, our vote-sharing strategy, and the failure of many senior DPP candidates.
But on the whole, the election was peaceful, and everything returned to normal soon after it was over. That's a symbol of Taiwan's democratic progress. Vote buying cases also declined. Most people involved in vote buying were KMT connected, although Mr. Chu failed to raise this point. We hope that the Ministry of Justice investigations that began during the campaign will continue.
Since two KMT vice chairmen helped campaign for the New Party, we wonder if these persons, who helped another party undermine their own, will support other countries to attack ours if they are elected president and vice president. [Lin and Hau are running together for president and vice president.]
Mr. Chu also mentioned that the extreme DPP candidates for Taiwan independence all lost. But Chen Chi-mai and Li Ying-yuan were elected, and they are firm advocates of Taiwan independence. Clearly, many factors need to be considered when analyzing a candidate's success. The DPP's vote-sharing strategy was successful in the south [part of Taipei city], which shows many voters had party awareness. In fact, vote-sharing goes against democracy. But it still seems like a good idea.
By and large, the NP and the DPP grew more. The former created unity on its "anti-Lee" stance [a highly critical assessment of President Lee Teng-hui]. The latter came up with the ideas of "a grand coalition government" and "a grand reconciliation," so there was no intense emotion during the campaign. We didn't want to see conflict among sub ethnic groups after the incident in Kaohsiung, because everyone will lose if hatred exists among groups in society. We would rather slow down party development in order for all of us to learn reconciliation and cooperation.
Wang Chien-shien:
The New Party didn't nominate any one from business consortia or gangster groups. Half our nominees have Ph.D. degrees. It's interesting that a scholar writing in the China Times noted that some KMT candidates were unwilling to use the party flag or to highlight the party name in their campaigns. They even made their campaign banners look a bit like ours. I think the KMT should be concerned if its nominees are reluctant to identify with their own party.
Some notorious candidates still got elected, and so did some who appealed to voters with tearful pleas for votes. At the same time, some outstanding DPP candidates with excellent performance records in the legislature, including Lee Ching hsiung and Yao Chia-wen, unexpectedly lost. Such things can improve only when voter sophistication is higher.
The KMT still holds over half of the legislative seats, but it could be a [functioning] minority because of their poor attendance record. If this remains unchanged and the opposition parties boycott votes, it will be more difficult for KMT-proposed bills to pass in the legislature.
HuFu:
This election significantly restructures the political domain. First, restructured ideology. In recent years, quite conflicting ideologies were demonstrated in the elections. This time, the conflicts between so-called Taiwan aware ness and China awareness have been further separated. The OPP still insists on a Taiwan-centered ideology; the KMT uses the Republic of China "on Taiwan"; the New Party stresses a Chinese ideology that says the "Republic of China" is the legitimate formulation. Despite the important differences in nuance, all three parties emphasize that they love Taiwan and don't want Mainland China to attack the island. In other words, they are all moving toward rationalism. For instance, the DPP's slogans of "give Taiwan a chance," "a grand coalition government," and "a grand reconciliation" are all based on rationality. If all three parties keep developing in this direction, it will have great impact on Taiwan's future.
Second, restructured voters. Basically, DPP voters remain the same. Focusing on Taiwan independence doesn't work, so the DPP promoted "a grand coalition government" and still kept its supporters. The number of New Party supporters grew rapidly, almost doubling. But the ruling party still maintains its old structure. It got votes through social mobilization, relying on coalitions of economic and political factions. KMT support declined to only 46 percent of the votes cast because of its unchanged structure and the vagueness of the Republic of China "on Taiwan."
In the past, people to a large extent voted for candidates instead of their parties or platforms. This time the vote sharing strategies used by the DPP and NP were quite successful in the Taipei area and in Taoyuan County. There must have been solid party awareness among voters, because they recognized the parties more than the candidates. This is significant for election analysis; it means that party politics has established a foundation in Taiwan.
Chiu Hei-yuan:
The three party representatives have just assessed their party performances in the election. I'd like to make a more searching review. First, are provincial conflicts still a problem? Look at the non-Taiwanese winners: for the KMT, 15 percent, or thirteen persons; for the DPP, 2 percent, or one person; and for the NP, 62 percent, or thirteen persons. There's a big difference. Where else will a non-Taiwanese candidate go to win besides the New Party? The DPP has only one non-Taiwanese winner, and her husband is Taiwanese. So, it's difficult for both the DPP and NP to get rid of their party colors of being provincial groups.
Second, on which party will you rely to get elected if you have a Ph.D.? Look at the elected candidates with doctorates 30 percent were KMT, 60 percent were DPP, and 71 percent were NP. The lowest is the KMT. In fact, the record of formal schooling doesn't matter that much in KMT nominations. Even if a Ph.D. holder is nominated, the chance of winning is far less than for DPP and NP candidates. This is a small, but significant, indicator.
The KMT still used traditional campaign strategies. Its nominees were from local factions and business consortia, and its old way of mobilization didn't fit the pulse of a modern society. The DPP has reached a bottleneck in its development it has tried to change its image, but achieved little. But the NP has successfully transformed its image [of being an urban based party].
Thomas B. Gold:
I'm an outsider with no preference toward any party or faction, so I can talk frankly. This is the third time I have observed Taiwan elections. When I was here in 1989 and 1992, Mr. Chu was the director general of the KMT's Department of Cultural Affairs. I remember that [at that time] he under estimated the DPP's chance to develop. So, it's very interesting to hear him saying just now that the KMT is quite satisfied with keeping [only] half of the seats. It shows how much the political scene in Tai wan has changed.
The election was peaceful, proving Taiwan's democratization. I was a member of an election observation tour sponsored by the China Times and visited places outside Taipei. I think there is really a big difference in the political culture between the north and the south. What the voters in places like Chiayi, Tainan, and Kaohsiung want differs considerably from what voters in Taipei want.
Mr. Wang just mentioned that some KMT candidates were reluctant to identify with their party. That's what I've seen in this election. Why? It seems that the KMT was a burden to them, and they had chosen the party only because there was no other choice.
Wakabayashi Masahiro:
Although there were still instances of violence and bribery, it was quite a successful election on the whole, in terms of responsible politics. The outcome shows that those who were previously disappointed now have representatives within the system. In this way the election has functioned to strengthen party politics. People with anti-system sentiments now have representatives in the legislature. The ruling party lost some seats and the legislative operation may be chaotic, but by and large the stability of the system has in creased.
HuFu:
This election has moved the populism-based antagonisms of the past [outside the system] into the Legislative Yuan and systematized them [within the political framework]. Under such circumstances, how should the legislature run? Even though the ruling party still has a majority of seats, it's a marginal majority. The KMT attendance record in the past was bad, and its legislative quality was inconsistent. In comparison, some NP members with majors in law and political science won. Their attendance will no doubt be better. And given their enthusiasm, they will challenge the KMT. The DPP also has many law and political science experts. The ruling party won't be able to manage the legislative process if it makes no improvements.
In the past, almost all the bills were drafted by the Executive Yuan alone. From now on, it has to learn to collaborate with the Legislative Yuan, and the premier must learn to compromise with the other two parties. As for the KMT chairman, he has to relax party control over KMT legislators, who will become more independent because of no outright majority among the three parties.
The Executive Yuan must learn to be responsible to the Legislative Yuan, which means it has to work under the cabinet system. The past few constitutional revisions strengthened presidential power and moved away from the cabinet system. Now we should return to the Constitution, and the premier's power and responsibility must be tied to the Legislative Yuan. Surely this will have great impact on the presidential election, be cause there is no need for a brilliant and capable president under the cabinet system.
Wang Chien-shien:
Some people say the New Party plays on the conflicts among provincial groups, and its votes are all from veterans [those who moved to Taiwan with the Nationalist army in 1949] and their dependents. But we see that over 70 percent of the nominees by the KMT's "veterans branch" won this time. This means that the NP's 21 winners didn't just get support from veterans and their dependents.
Of the NP winners, nearly 40 percent are Taiwanese. There weren't any non-Taiwanese among the 50 DPP legislators in the previous legislature, and now there's only one out of the 54 newly elected. The DPP needs to work harder to build harmonious relations among provincial groups. Mr. Hsieh said that people should forget about hatred for the sake of reconciliation. That's a good point. Many DPP members have served time in jail [for political reasons], so there's hatred in their minds.
A word on religion. Personally, I don't want to see religion mixed up with politics. Politics is dirty. Nowadays, some people are trying to take advantage of their connection with Buddhism. If they are not stopped, religion will be politicized and temples will be split along party political lines, or preference for a political figure. Then party propaganda will be cited in temples, instead of religious scriptures:
James C.Y. Chu:
I appreciate the opportunity to sit here and listen to the debate on whether the DPP or the NP has more of a provincial complex, because the KMT doesn't have that problem. I'm also enjoying the fact that the ruling party is open to criticism. Just now, the other two party representatives emphasized forgetting hatred. But you can't just say that. You have to do it. The DPP's appeal to the "anti-Chiang" [Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo] factor has reached a dead end. Now we see the NP appealing to "anti-Lee" [Lee Teng-hui]. This isn't democracy either, but the politics of hatred.
Besides, since the KMT kept more than half the seats [in the legislature], it still shows that the voters rejected the slogan, "three parties, no outright majority."
Professor Gold said that many KMT candidates didn't identify with their party. In fact, that's not new. It's been so ever since the very first elections. It also happens to many parties in other countries. The older a party is, the less attention people pay to its ideology.
Chiu Hei-yuan:
In my earlier comments I was just analyzing the election outcome and didn't expect this debate. The reason I raised the provincial issue as an indicator was that I hope that the divisions between provincial groups will disappear. If they don't, we should consider ways of allocating political power reasonably [to different groups]. We aren't saying that the KMT doesn't have the provincialism problem, comparatively speaking. The problem came into being in the first place as a result of the KMT failing to deal with it carefully.
In the previous legislature, the KMT members had bad attendance records, and obviously the legislative process didn't go smoothly. Many bills passed first reading but failed the second. It will be worse be cause of the decline of KMT seats in this legislature. Many people are concerned about how the Legislative Yuan will operate. But legislative efficiency can be improved. First, legislative norms should be established as soon as possible. Second, the operation of party caucuses [within the Legislative Yuan] will become a key factor. The previous legislature tried to implement party consultations, but didn't really succeed. The agreements reached through party caucuses were often over ruled later. And for smoother operation, the caucuses must be formed democratically.
Frank Chang-ting Hsieh:
A party's nomination involves more than considerations of a person's provincial origin. Being Taiwanese isn't essential to get nominated by the DPP, although it's true that there are fewer non-Taiwanese DPP supporters. But if we keep discussing the question this way, it will turn out that the KMT seems to be the most open-minded, and that's not the case at all. The DPP has come up with "the grand coalition government," but the other parties just don't believe us. The KMT doesn't believe in other people's good will. For now, Taiwan is confronted with Mainland China's threats, and that's not a problem just for anyone party. No matter how big the national defense and technology budgets may be, they alone can't guarantee Taiwan's security. For this sake, the DPP is open to cooperation.
Thomas B. Gold:
The government restructuring under way in Taiwan is a restructuring of all systems. For instance, should the National Assembly be maintained? And if so, how will it interact with the Legislative Yuan? How should the relationships between the central and local governments be adjusted? So far, I'm still confused by the interaction between the central and provincial governments, as regards taxation, for instance.
Concerning the presidential election, I don't think the unification- independence issue should be discussed any more. Instead, domestic affairs such as economic prosperity, the APROC [Asia-Pacific Regional Operations Center] plan, environmental protection, and election bribery require more attention.
Chu Yun-han:
By retaining only a superficial majority, the KMT is facing a painful decision-whether it should cooperate with other parties or work alone. It's either risky or restrictive. Only one of the four independent legislators is likely to cooperate with the KMT. So the KMT dosen't have much space in this matter. Besides, the DPP won't allow any of its party members to enter the cabinet. Neither is it easy to work with the NP.
But if the KMT dosen't cooperate with the other parties, it won't be able to get its nominee [for premier]past the new legislature. At the same time, the KMT won't have a majority in all legislative committees, and it won't be able to lead the legislative process any more.
In the past, the KMT tended to overrule at the second reading agreements they had made earlier in committees. But now, with the KMT retaining only three more than half of the seats, it will be hard for the Executive Yuan to continue leading the legislative process. Whenever there's consensus about certain proposed bills, the opposition parties will be able to pass them if they can just secure the support of a few KMT legislators. Under such circumstances, the KMT will be restricted in the legislature and things could move out of their control at any time.