DPP faces hard truths after defeat

2012/01/19

By Bruce Jacobs 家博 President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has won a dramatic victory. He has used the advantages of incumbency and overcame suggestions from some polls that the election was very close. Part of Ma’s victory came from voters who initially said they would vote for People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜), but changed their minds at the last minute to ensure Ma’s victory. During Ma’s second term we can expect a continuation of the policies from his first term. If China cooperates, Taiwan will deepen economic cooperation with the giant across the Taiwan Strait. Yet, Premier and now vice-president-elect Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) has said on several occasions that Taiwan is economically over-dependent on China and that the nation needs to expand trade with other partners in Asia and around the world. Will there be such moves during Ma’s second term to reduce such over-dependency? Whether Taiwan gains more international space will remain to be seen. Will Taiwan gain better status in the World Health Assembly? Will Taiwan gain access to other international organizations? Will China continue to belittle Taiwan with terms such as Taipei China (中國台北) instead of Chinese Taipei (中華台北) or the Republic of China on Taiwan? Will Ma’s “diplomatic truce” continue to be respected by both sides so that Taiwan’s diplomatic allies do not switch to Beijing? Will Taiwanese gain visa-free status to the US? Will the US and other nations provide more ministerial-level visits? The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) also won a healthy 64 seats in the legislature, seven more than required for a majority. The difficulty for Taiwan is that the political system does not generate disciplined political parties. Thus, in parliamentary systems such as the UK, Australia and Japan, a government falls if it loses its parliamentary majority. This does not happen in the US or Taiwan. One of the difficulties facing the Ma government will be keeping the legislative majority disciplined. In 2008, the KMT defeated the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) by more than 16 percentage points in the presidential election. Former DPP chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) is to be congratulated for winning more than half of those votes back for her party. However, one in five of her votes in the presidential election leaked to the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) in the party vote, where the TSU won three times as many votes as forecast, with 9 percent, the third-highest party total. The TSU’s strong showing indicates some unease with the softening of the DPP’s policy toward China. The DPP won only 40 legislative seats, well under the 45 that the leadership privately hoped to gain. Even with the TSU’s three seats, the pan-greens have only 38 percent of the seats, an improvement on 2008, but still insufficient for a party hoping to win back control of the government. This poor result clearly indicates that the DPP must reconsider how it determines its nominations for legislative seats, a process that has failed in the past three legislative elections. Although the DPP has made some gains, it still has a considerable distance to go before regaining the presidency. This campaign showed some substantial difficulties with the DPP and its campaign organization. Tsai initially did not listen to advice. Thus, for example, her performance in the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) debate with Ma was disastrous. After that, she improved her debating performance, but her key aides, who controlled access to her, remained limited to three young women. These aides were overworked and blocked access to Tsai herself. On several occasions her aides proved they weren’t up to the tasks facing them and the DPP.One area that concerns many DPP members is dealings with the foreign media. A highly respected Washington Post correspondent requested an interview prior to Tsai’s visit to Washington in September. Because a key aide of Tsai perceived to reporter to be unfriendly, the DPP did not grant the interview. The Financial Times, which also asked for an interview, likewise did not gain access. Thus, Tsai was unable to counteract the negative feelings among Washington officials, such as the White House’s National Security Council. In another example, the DPP only translated into English the cross-strait section of the DPP’s 10-year plan. Some US-based professors had provided a full translation of the plan months ago. Despite there being no questions about the quality and value of the professors’ translation for the foreign press, a key aide to Tsai blocked its release. Tsai’s nomination enabled the DPP to begin a generational change among its top leadership. However, such a leadership change has yet to be completed. Many new leaders will emerge over the next three years, including vice presidential nominee Su Jia-chyuan (蘇嘉全). However, in addition to a leadership change, the DPP needs to listen to a much wider range of people. The party has large numbers of people capable of making major contributions. These willing and able people must not be cut off from contributing to the party and to party decisions. Such changes will be necessary before the DPP can regain power. If a political party cannot rule itself, how can it rule the nation? Bruce Jacobs is professor of Asian languages and studies and director of the Taiwan Studies Unit at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.

臉書討論

回應

李登輝會跟國民黨合作嗎?
2007/03/10 媒抗政治時事版 布萊克萊恩

【回覆 abiau2 於 2007/03/09 10:05 發表的文章】
李登輝已經快去見上帝了。他在台灣的聲名,在民主先生封號以及2004年二二八手牽手活動後已經達到極致。我不覺得他需要更多或更高的滿足感。
因此,某些人把李登輝的動作解釋成是「為了個人權力」或「為了台聯的席次」,我覺得可用「燕雀焉知鴻鵠之志」來形容這類見解的膚淺與短視。中國一些反台獨的網友,曾經比較台灣與中國近百年來的各個領導人物;歸納出來是,李登輝是當中哲學基礎最深厚、讀書最多的人。
李登輝跟陳水扁的不同是阿扁擅於短線操作,但也可以解釋成阿扁腦袋中產生不出來什麼長遠的謀略。某些人(包含大話新聞的一些出身於中時跟聯合的所謂泛綠名嘴)說李登輝是因為恨陳水扁所以做出奇怪的事情,我聽了只覺得可笑;因為李登輝或許根本不將阿扁視為是同等級戰鬥指數的政治人物看待。
我可以直接從您所用的那句形容台聯的「中國黨廢棄物資源回收」導出你我思維的最大差異點:許多民進黨政客與民進黨支持者最嚴重的一個致命點,就是類似共產黨「紅五類」的「綠五類」思維:泛綠政治人物一定得要「從小」就啟蒙反國民黨,或是得要坐過牢,或是得經常吹噓過去是如何在街頭猛衝,才符合所謂的「綠五類」定義。媒抗一些民進黨的死忠支持者,他們對於李登輝與台聯的批判,經常反應出這種共產黨式的「政治血緣純化論」心態。
問題是,如果這種綠五類的見解是歷史正確的話,全台灣至少有70%以上的人民是會被這些「綠五類」分類者認為是無法寬恕或「出身有缺陷」的混蛋!綠五類論者既認為這些人的政治純度很低,那又如何能吸引他們的選票呢?這是最大的矛盾!
關鍵在於,不管是要建國或是國家正名,如果條件是不流血、不使用革命方式的話,那麼泛綠的選票必須衝到75%以上;而上述的「綠五類」觀點,不僅無法擴大泛綠的基本盤,更可能讓泛綠選票範圍退縮到比例不大的基本教義市場。
我「認為」李登輝想做的,就在於尚待努力的那25%;這25%,光靠部分深綠狂熱支持者或民進黨一些短視政客,是鐵定無法做到的。
更精確地說,如果光靠綠五類指數高的深綠支持者或深綠政客,而沒有其他淺綠、國民黨本土派、與外圍組織的搭配的話,台灣要建國或正名,我看至少得等上100年。