As the National Assembly prepares to meet, many people are concerned that the major political parties as well as a number of special interest groups seem intent upon playing politics with the constitution, giving rise to concerns about the ultimate fate of a document that has already had a checkered history.
Practically speaking, five months after the ROC Constitution took effect on December 25, 1947, its provisions were substantially redefined by a series of so called Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of Communist Rebellion. During the emergency period of the communist uprising, extraordinary powers were vested in the Office of the President, effectively relegating the premiership to a highly subordinate role. At roughly the same time, martial law (euphemistically called the Emergency Decree) further boosted the power of the president, Chiang Kai-shek.
The power of the president was not materially challenged until after President Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law in 1987, and President Lee Teng-hui, following political liberalization policies begun by his predecessor, announced the termination of “the period of communist rebellion” in 1991. Also in 1991, the National Assembly abolished the Temporary Provisions and adopted ten new articles to the constitution. These articles provided the legal basis for electing a Second National Assembly (the first one had served more than four decades) at the end of 1991. A second constitutional convention, held in May 1992, adopted eight more articles, addressing issues ranging from environment to government restructuring. When the National Assembly convenes in April, it will be taking yet another step in refining a document that has only recently been followed in its entirety.
Political observers are currently betting that the National Assembly will decide on a clear shift to a presidential system. The cabinet system is seen as the less likely choice because the public clearly wants to elect its own president. And, at least for the time being, none of the major political parties claims that it prefers the cabinet system. All parties agree that the current system is vague and leads to complications. Moreover, the system by nature promotes a power struggle between the president and the premier.
The KMT leadership thinks that a clear presidential system is the best way to strengthen the ROC’s political structure. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has favored the presidential system since 1991. Party leaders see direct, popular election of the president as a short cut to power—a much less arduous and time consuming process, for example, than winning a majority of the seats in the Legislative Yuan. The Chinese New Party (CNP) does not object to the presidential system, in part because it recognizes that this is the form already preferred by the KMT and DPP. CNP leaders only propose that there be sufficient checks and balances on presidential power.
No matter which government system the National Assembly decides to follow, political observers say that the KMT leadership prefers not to change the government’s five-power Yuan structure, comprising the Executive, Legislative, Judicial, Examination, and Control branches. The party has also emphasized that the constitution should not be radically amended, or it will not win public respect.
Nevertheless, many people point out that the five-power government structure actually exists in name only. They fear that the current system is already a presidential system without the checks and balances. They worry that after the president is democratically elected—and particularly if he simultaneously serves as the party chairman—he will have even more power than is given the president of the United States. Although the public is more confused than enlightened by many constitutional problems, the issue of checks and balances enjoys greater popular clarity. Therefore, the decisions made by the National Assembly on this issue will no doubt be made in the glare of an exceptionally bright public spotlight. –Chen I-hsin and Wu Wen-cheng.