The Ma mandate that
never was
By Jerome Keating
Most are familiar with the adage ¡§businessmen have no country,¡¨ so it came as no
surprise that immediately after President Ma Ying-jeou¡¦s (°¨^¤E) victory (51.6
percent of the vote) in Saturday¡¦s presidential elections, numerous pro-China
business pundits cheered. One after another they declared that Ma¡¦s win was a
clear mandate for his cross-strait policies.
Let everyone go full steam ahead in investing and deepening business ties with
China; profit allegedly awaits all. Some even suggested establishing political
ties with China as well, as a means to cement these alleged profit gains. Was
this really what Taiwan¡¦s vote signified? Not by a long shot. Instead of being a
mandate, the vote was a call for caution; the populace at best decided to leave
things in a holding pattern. The devil is in the details.
First, let us put this in a deeper perspective. In 2008, Ma claimed that he was
elected because of his platform for stronger cross-strait relations with China.
He got 58.4 percent of the vote and that could be classified as a mandate. But
here comes the first misread: Ma, despite his post-election claims, was elected
primarily because of his ¡§6-3-3¡¨ campaign pledge. If pundits question what
¡§6-3-3¡¨ means, or its role, they have not been following Taiwan for the past
four years. Ma¡¦s promise of 6 percent annual GDP growth, an unemployment rate of
below 3 percent and an annual per capita income of US$30,000 never got off the
ground. Ma later said this promise would be fulfilled by 2016 and not by 2012,
but those who were alert would have noticed that Ma ever-so-slyly avoided
mentioning it again in his 2012 campaign.
Now come the more obvious questions. If Ma had a mandate of 58.4 percent in
2008, and his vote dropped to 51.6 percent (almost 7 percentage points), on what
grounds can he claim winning another mandate? Ma lost more than 1.5 million
votes from 2008 to 2012. In 2008, Ma won by 2,213,485 votes; this year, he won
by a greatly diminished 797,561 votes. Is this what mandates are made of? Is
going downhill a mandate?
Look likewise at the Legislative Yuan. In 2008, Ma¡¦s party, the Chinese
Nationalist Party (KMT), won 81 of the 113 seats in the Legislative Yuan. This
year, Ma¡¦s party won 64 seats; it lost 17 seats. The Democratic Progressive
Party (DPP) won 27 seats in 2008; this year it won 40, a gain of 13 seats.
The Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) running simply on the pledge to oppose two of
Ma¡¦s policies ¡X the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) and
increased cross-strait relations that endanger Taiwan¡¦s sovereignty ¡X had no
seats in 2008; this year it got three seats. The People First Party (PFP),
normally an ally of the KMT, purposely ran separately from the KMT this time and
went from one seat to three seats. Do all of these losses for Ma¡¦s party
constitute this alleged new mandate?
Ma did have a victory. He won the election, but in no way can that be considered
a mandate. Ma could claim a mandate in 2008, but if his policies were even
halfway decent his vote count would have stayed even or even possibly increased.
It did not. The KMT had controlled 70 percent of the seats in the legislature ¡X
that gave it the power to implement any and all of Ma¡¦s policies.
This year, the KMT has a greatly diminished majority in the legislature; it has
lost its power to push through legislation unopposed. The opposition gained the
advantage of being able not only to present changes to the Constitution, but
also to put forth recommendations to censure and recall the president. Is this a
mandate for Ma and his party or a new mandate for the opposition to be a better
watchdog and monitor the president and his policies?
The pro-business cheerleaders with no country of their own of course cheer on.
Invest, invest and invest. One can wonder, who pays the cheerleaders and what do
they hope to gain? That may not be important. What is more important for Taiwan
watchers is to look at the details. There is no mandate; this year¡¦s vote was
more a decision to wait and see, to go into a holding pattern.
The DPP has not only been strengthened, it is back in the game. Other changes
are coming as well. The US will have its own election in November and China¡¦s
President Hu Jintao (JÀAÀÜ) will soon step down. Taiwan has decided to wait and
see.
Jerome Keating is a commentator based in Taipei.
|