|
KMT turning a deaf ear to criticism
By Li Hua-chiu 李華球
Three years ago the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) swept back to power, with
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) at the helm, claiming yet another resounding
victory following its victory in the legislative elections earlier that year.
In a very short period of time the party bounced back from the depths of
opposition to the height of majority government, with the kind of victory that
comes but once in a generation. However, what goes up must come down. Since
those heady days, the party has suffered a string of defeats in elections and
by-elections, major and minor. That things have come to this does not bode well
for a governing party, its troops having been subjected to little short of a
rout.
In elections, of course, victory is never assured, and one has to accept the
occasional defeat. It must be difficult to deal with the relentless nature of
the losses, however. After every defeat the party conducts a review and takes
disciplinary action, not least to show its supporters that it is taking steps to
improve. The exasperating thing is that no matter how much it reflect on its
defeats, no matter how much it tries to come up with a remedy, the situation
remains the same, and it still loses almost every election.
The KMT’s successive defeats don’t concern me very much, although I do find
myself feeling bitterly frustrated and disappointed. Why? Because I see things
happening that shouldn’t be, I see people taking the wrong approach and the
wrong attitude, employing ill-advised policies. I see this happening again and
again, but I know that if I make the smallest suggestion, these people will turn
a deaf ear to it.
For a very long time now, I have been publishing articles critical of the KMT,
but they have never been taken seriously. These people won’t be told, and they
won’t listen or be held to anything. They are good at meting out criticism
internally, but are rarely frank with the outside world, for fear this would
compromise their interests.
Although quite used to this kind of controlling behavior, I find it frustrating
nonetheless when comments made in all sincerity are simply sneered at or brushed
off with derision.
In this day and age, if the public gives a political party another shot at
government, it doesn’t matter how hard it works or how much effort it puts in,
it is expected to produce the goods. If it doesn’t, it won’t get the votes. This
is simply how it is. Beating on about good intentions is a waste of breath, a
mug’s game.
The KMT is home to a number of narrow-minded, cliquey, talentless, obsequious
individuals who are more concerned about themselves than anyone else, and
clueless about what to do next. Of course people do see this, but there is a
reluctance to address the situation, as they are unwilling to challenge
authority and speak up on behalf of the public. How could one expect such a
party to be up for the fight? And several by-elections later, is the Democratic
Progressive Party (DPP) any more aware of what the public wants? It’s time to
capitalize on the situation, and use the public’s frustration.
The DPP at the moment has several heavyweights in its ranks. Despite the
considerable rivalry between them, they will always settle on one individual
when faced with a serious challenger at elections, so that the party always ends
up fielding a strong candidate. In the end it doesn’t really matter whether that
candidate actually wins or loses, in the sense that this has helped the party
develop. In addition, next time it might be their own turn. Yes, it must be
difficult, and at times bitterly disappointing. Yes, they might begrudge letting
an opportunity slip through their fingers. The point is, they wouldn’t pull the
party back for the sake of their own ambition. They suspect that their patience
will pay off in the long run. This is the way that the DPP has always operated,
and it’s unlikely to change anytime soon.
Although the KMT has taken quite a battering in the polls, it is not yet beyond
salvation. If its future success lies in the balance, this balance pivots on
whether it can discover which way public opinion is headed, whether it can find
out what it is the public wants and whether it has the courage to reinvent
itself. It also has to remember that no individual is the measure of victory,
that no individual is the sole architect of success, and that no individual can
expect Lady Luck to shine on them. If the party can do this, will it have a
future? That is for the electorate to decide, for history to record. In the end,
the wheat shall be sorted from the chaff.
Senior members of the KMT should take note: Take a cold, hard look, cultivate
more talent, refrain from your cliquey ways, embrace transparency and look to a
brighter future.
Li Hua-chiu is a researcher with the National Policy
Foundation.
|
