Dilemma Behind Direct Election of Party Chairman
By Yang Tai-shun
United Daily News, September 5, 2021
The chairmanship election of the Kuomintang (KMT) will be held in late September. The media held the first televised debate yesterday in order for party members with voting rights to understand the ideals and ambitions of the four candidates. Since this tenure of the party chairman will overlap with the local elections at the end of 2022 as well as the presidential election in 2024, the chairmanship election has attracted particular attention from all sides.
According to the KMT’s party charter, the chairman is directly elected by party members, and it is estimated that there are 390,000 qualified party members. Since the voting rate has been around 50 percent in the past, any candidate who receives 80,000 votes should easily win. The problem is, most party members come from military, education and government backgrounds and their opinions tend to be far from mainstream. As a result, the candidates face a dilemma at the debate: if they deliberately cater to the likings of party members, future voters who are not party members might find the candidates dull and old-fashioned. This will reinforce voters’ stereotypical idea of the KMT, which would not be beneficial to future elections. In addition, ever since the 2000s, it has gradually become a custom for the chairperson to take responsibility for the party’s defeat and resign from office. Therefore, if a candidate yields excessively to the interests of party members, he would be a short-lived chairman even if he wins. But if a candidate chooses to focus on the bigger picture, it might cause party members to feel that the candidate does not have enough of the party’s spirit and end up as a succès d’estime.
As the candidates found themselves in this dilemma, most of them chose to exalt Dr. Sun Yat-sen, the founding father of the Republic of China and first leader of the KMT. Although most people have a vague impression of Sun Yat-sen, mentioning Sun is still a safety card because it would take care of the feelings of party members without being labeled as a reunionist. Nevertheless, in an election with very limited voters, the biggest winning factor still depends on the mobilization of voters by supportive organizations and sects. Thus, the debate itself is a kind of formalism. The KMT may hope to form a democratic image through holding this debate, but it also brings a risk of exposing their shortcomings. Considering these factors, the two candidates who are ahead were very cautious, while candidate Chang Ya-chung, who has no supporting sect, launched full attacks on other candidates.
In a parliamentary country, once a political party gains power, the leader of that party will become the official leader of the government with the right to decide major policies and personnel arrangements, which is vital to the direction of the country’s development. And that is why after Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga of Japan announced that he will not run for re-election, people pay very close attention to the election of the next leader of the Liberal Democratic party. In the election of party leaders in these countries, usually only parliament members who are in the same boat have the right to vote. Therefore, even when the competition is fierce, it is still considered an internal contest , which does not harm the overall image of the party.
In countries like the United States where the government embodies separation of powers, the president holds the most power while the party chairperson acts more as the president’s assistant. If the party is in opposition, it will be led by the congress whereas the party chairman will only focus on fundraising matters. This explains why elections of a party chairman rarely attract political discussions. People tend to care more about the nomination of the president and the election of the congress leader while paying little attention to the party chairman. The president and legislative speaker, who are the actual party leaders, do not have to worry about losing their official positions due to the party’s poor performance since they are protected by their term of office. Therefore, even if the election occurs every two years, the president and the speaker can still stick to their original beliefs without being pinned down by party members.
Taiwan’s government has had authoritarian influence in the past and is now somewhere between a parliamentary system and separation of powers. Under these circumstances, the party chairman has always been a very awkward position to hold. When a party is in power, nobody objects to the president also holding the position of chairman of the party. The president can then use both his or her power in both the party and the government with great confidence. Nevertheless, when a party is in opposition, they lose the support of the government and the chairperson becomes a leader without backup. That in turn would make it hard for the chairperson to lead the parliament or to give orders to local government officials who are party members. Accordingly, Taiwan’s destiny is almost entirely dominated by the presidential election. Paradoxically, even if the opposition party’s chairman may have no substantial support, he or she still has a considerable voice and can nominate the future president and legislators, which makes the position of a party chairman a contested one.