|
Taiwan ruled by unelected leader
By Lin Cho-shui 林濁水
Wednesday, Jan 27, 2010, Page 8
The Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) legislators recently united under the
party whip to push through the amendment to the Local Government Act (地方制度法).
Even President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who has carefully nurtured his image as a
mild-mannered, solemn and humble president, said with satisfaction that
Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) was correct in saying that the KMT
finally looks like a “real party.”
But at a time when Ma and Wang are so content with the party’s performance,
Taiwan’s constitutional politics is suffering a serious crisis as the nation’s
political system turns into an indefinable monster. Let us take a look at how
the KMT passed the act.
On the surface, the KMT legislators’ obedience to party discipline was key to
the success, but the only reason the party’s whip was successfully wielded was
that the KMT had accepted its lawmakers’ suggestion that the NT$45,000 monthly
stipend be cancelled for township representatives that become district advisers
when the new direct municipalities are implemented.
That seems to imply that party discipline is expected to uphold the will of
lawmakers rather than that of KMT Secretary-General King Pu-tsung (金溥聰), and
that Wang’s “real party” is a party that obeys its lawmakers.
Since King’s original amendment proposal was unsatisfactory, there is nothing
wrong listening to the party’s legislators.
However, the lawmakers also dominate other decisions. They vetoed Ma’s nominee
for the Control Yuan vice presidency and requested that nominees for both the
Council of Grand Justices and the Examination Yuan visit the legislature as a
show of respect. Such questionable moves forced Ma to go back on his promise to
separate the government and the party and double as KMT chairman in order to
control legislators.
KMT legislators also unexpectedly joined the opposition in a populist approach
over the US beef import issue and rejected Ma’s promise to Washington,
destroying his political arrangements.
In other words, KMT legislators have adopted a tough approach toward the
government and their party. Why? Because of the poor quality of Ma’s decisions
and performance and his loss of authority, but there are also some systemic
problems.
First, the adoption of a single member electoral district system for the
legislative elections. When voters wanted to demand political accountability
from a legislator under the old multi-member electoral district system, a
legislator could hide among party colleagues. A candidate could also be elected
by securing just 5 percent to 10 percent of the vote, either through some unique
ideology or through vote buying. Under the new system, however, candidates must
win support by directly facing voters in their district alone, and they must
take responsibility for all party policies. That means a legislator hoping to be
re-elected will reject unfavorable KMT policies and disobey the party.
Second, the legislature’s right to approve the nominee for the premiership was
abolished through constitutional amendment. In return, the president dare not
ask for a presidential veto, the same right to dissolve the legislature that
exists under the French system, and the right to launch a referendum. As a
result, Ma has no constitutional tool for dealing with the deadlock between the
executive and the legislative branches, and so he must let the legislature
direct key policies.
There was another reason why the Local Government Act was passed — King was able
to communicate with the legislature and he decided that in future, Ma would take
over part of the communications with legislators.
In the past, national policy was formed through interaction between the Cabinet
and the legislature, but now Ma and the KMT secretary-general, who is external
to the system, interact directly with the legislature, diminishing the Cabinet’s
role. The secretary-general can also give in to the legislature, but he must be
tough in his interactions with the Cabinet lest policymaking be reduced to
chaos. This has elevated the KMT secretary-general post to an unprecedented
status, surpassing the level it reached during the Chiang era.
Ma, King and Wang have together created an unprecedented system for national
power. It is not a presidential system, because the president does not have the
right to veto major policy decisions by the legislature. It is not a
semi-presidential system, because the Cabinet no longer plays a part in
policymaking. It is not a Cabinet system, because the Cabinet must listen to the
legislature through the party secretary-general. It is not a democratic system,
because the constitutional institutions must listen to the decisions made by the
secretary-general, who is external to the constitutional system. It is not a
totalitarian system, because party and government cannot order the legislature
around.
The KMT is not an externally created party, because it is not controlled by
labor unions or other non-governmental organizations, nor is it an internally
created party because the secretary-general, who now holds the most power. is a
position external to the system. Nor does the party lead the government, assist
the government or remain separate from the government.
Such a system can only be described as an indefinable monster.
In this indescribable system, the legislature is very powerful. It may correctly
reflect public opinion, but it is even better at being populist, and then
passing responsibility to the impotent president and Cabinet. Being led by the
nose by its populism, it is very unlikely that the government will manage to lay
down any long-term plans or come up with reasonable foreign policy.
A constitutional crisis is around the corner, but regrettably, the government
rejoices in the knowledge that the KMT now is more like a “real party,” while
the public waits in vain for systemic improvements and ideas for the future.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party
legislator.
|
