20041213

In this past legislative election, to clearly draw a line between the pan-green and pan-blue camp and to persuade moderate and undecided voters, President Chen Shui-bian made a pledge to enact a new constitution. He even established a timetable for achieving it.

In contrast to the pan-blue stance of amending the constitution and former president Lee Teng-hui's call to write a new constitution, Chen has been consistent in trying to find a "new middle way," which means a "large-scale amendment to the Constitution is tantamount to enacting a new constitution." This is an attempt to gain the support of "light blue," localized voters without endangering his pro-independence support.

There is no consensus in political discourse as to whether democratization requires the enactment of a new constitution. In the post-communist era, more than twenty countries in Europe and Asia, excluding Russia and Yugoslavia, have all enacted a new constitution. They wanted to seize the fleeting and crucial moment to set up a constitution to show their determination to reform. The political structures of authoritarian rule were an impediment to democratization.

If we look at the constitutional reforms conducted by Lee throughout his tenure in office, we see that the transfer of power between political parties was the primary focal point of his reforms. This included the establishment of the wholly-elected legislature and the direct election of the president.

This was achieved without actually altering the government's structure under the Constitution. Although the changes were incremental, compromises in the face of political realities and political power struggles were often unavoidable.

Back then the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) faction in the legislature only sought to share political power as an opposition party and had no long-term policy for managing the country. So current attempts to operate under the Constitution as amended in 1997 only create an endless series of problems.

For the Constitution to truly belong to the 23 million people of this nation, it must meet two conditions: It has to be created with our own hands and it has to be tailored to our needs. The former is a symbolic proclamation to the world and the latter is necessary for greater political integration domestically. They both show the legitimacy and necessity of enacting a new Taiwan constitution.

Based on the principle of self-determination, everyone is free to decide one's own fate politically, economically, socially, and culturally. The current system of the country was grafted onto Taiwan by the regime of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) without the consent of the people.

Although the DPP government is trying to work within the administrative system of the Republic of China (ROC), the nature of the system remains unchanged. Enacting a new constitution displays determination, shows that we want to have a country of our own, and that we will utilize the redefinition of a country to confirm the sovereignty of Taiwan.

When the US questioned Chen on his "four noes" policy, Chen replied that Taiwan is currently like "a child wearing a grown man's clothes." He was referring to the fact that the Constitution is already an outdated and unsuitable one for Taiwan since it was established for the vast population of China.

Writing a new constitution can clarify the nation's direction and help augment the national identity of Taiwan's people. Through the process of establishing a constitution we can integrate the diverse ethnic groups by having all take part in the construction of the country.

Shih Cheng-feng is an associate professor of public administration at Tamkang University.

By Charles Hong
According to the Webster's dictionary, the status quo is defined as "the existing state of affairs." This means that the status quo is not stagnant but changes with time and circumstance; otherwise it becomes a past state or history.

Since the US cut off diplomatic ties with the Republic of China (ROC) in 1979, US officials consistently have been calling the country "Taiwan." Secretary of State Colin Powell once called Taiwan the "ROC" -- only by mistake.

Ironically, even the State Department official who opposed the proposed name rectification to "Taiwan" presumably used the term "Taiwan." The US has "American Institute in Taiwan," "Taiwan Relations Act" and so on, all named after Taiwan.

These names are clear and precise. If they were misnamed as "Washington Institute in Taipei," "Chinese Taipei Relations Act" or "China Relations Act," there would be a lot of confusion and misinterpretations. These are the very reasons why the name rectification to "Taiwan" is urgently needed.

The Taiwanese have suffered enough from so many historical or improper names imposed on the country. They will be happy to see "Taiwanese Institute in the US," for example.

The US, China and the rest of the world all call Taiwan "Taiwan." This is multilateral and universal. Why can't Taiwan call itself "Taiwan?" After all, this name reflects the true status quo.

I have seen the moment of my greatness flicker,
And I have seen the eternal Footman hold my coat,
and snicker,
And in short, I was afraid.

When you're gloomy there is nothing like Eliot to make you even more so. But how well Prufrock sums up Saturday's events. The Taiwanese were being called upon in rally after rally by Chen Shui-bian to embrace a messianic destiny, to march out of their Babylonian captivity, shrugging off their colonial cringe to find some kind of authentic destiny as Taiwanese. But as Babylon has proved rather comfortable, this was not something that many felt inclined to do. When J. Alfred asks:

Let us not pretend that it wasn't disappointing. That a majority of Taiwanese could cast their votes for the parties of thugs, thieves, fraudsters, and scam artists, the parties of bagmen, gangsters, unreconstructed fascists, torturers and murderers beggars belief. Any progressive can only sympathize with Simon Bolivar's bitter last words: "He who serves the revolution ploughs the sea."

But the pan-greens can hardly escape blame for the debacle. There has been a lot of talk of their being too optimistic, running too many candidates and as a result spreading their vote too thinly. Then again there were total messes like Taipei City's second district where vote allocation simply fell apart.

But the disappointment was not the result of tactical failure, but strategic mistakes that were made at the very top. Chen chose to run a presidential election campaign for a legislative election. This means that he centered on symbolic issues of identity politics in a campaign which should have been about the basics -- support for farmers, opening direct links for businesspeople, pensions for the elderly, more school spending, a sustainable National Health Insurance system. Legislative elections in Taiwan are about pork-barrel issues -- the Taiwan voter's fundamental question to a candidate is not "what do you stand for " but "what can you give to me/get for me?" And here the pan-blues with their long practice of clientalism do actually have a better history of bringing home the bacon.

The election is being interpreted everywhere as a rejection of Taiwan separatism. Certainly there was a sense that themes from Chen's campaigning would, if realized, raise tensions with China. But there was also a wide realization that many of these would be impossible to attain, given that the pan-greens would never win the super-majority needed to make constitutional changes on their own. So there was a strange hollowness about the DPP's Chen-centered campaign, an emptiness that resulted in some 2.25 million who voted green in March -- a third of the total votes for Chen -- not showing up at the polls Saturday.

But while voters might have balked at the risky road the DPP seemed to be taking, Taiwan consciousness is not going to go away. Remember it was the strongly pro-reunification People First Party that was the big loser in the election, seeing a quarter of its seats go to the more moderate Chinese Nationalist Party.

For Taiwan-consciousness proselytizers, the message is clear: Do more work. Surely you didn't think that something that elsewhere has taken decades, is going to be accomplished in four or five years? You cannot create a sense of national identity, or national destiny in a handful of election campaigns. Building Taiwan as a nation has to go beyond political campaigning and find its way through civil society into people's hearts. Enough of politics -- for now.