Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: DPP/Facebook
WITH THE UPCOMING wave of recalls facing KMT legislators, both parties have gone on the offensive. In particular, both the KMT and DPP have announced a series of “policy explainer” sessions aimed at explaining their stances to the general public.
If this sounds reminiscent of a campaign season, ironically, elections for the presidency and legislature only took place last year. But one notes that the setup of Taiwan’s government system does not allow the executive branch of government any veto power. Likewise, there is no ability for the executive branch of government to dissolve the legislature and call for a new set of elections, as exists in some government systems.
Consequently, the current wave of recalls can be seen as the public taking the matter into their own hands. Although the KMT has framed the recall as being “revenge recalls” aimed at undermining democracy, one notes that the right of recall is a constitutional right in Taiwan. It is also unprecedented for a wave of recalls to target all KMT legislators.
The KMT has, on the other hand, stumbled when it comes to collecting signatures against DPP legislators. The exception is among Indigenous, a demographic that the KMT has traditionally performed strongly among. DPP legislator Saidhai Tahovecahe is likely among the only DPP legislators who realistically stands a chance of being recalled by the KMT, with the KMT leaning into the recall campaign out of anger that a DPP legislator has taken a seat traditionally held by the KMT.
The KMT should have no issue meeting the signature benchmarks for at least the first stage of petitions. It is possible that the KMT will meet these benchmarks within the extended period that it has to collect signatures. But if falsified signatures and signatures are rife among recall signature petition to date, leading to the questioning of some KMT party officials, one reason appears to be that the local party chapters of the KMT may not be particularly motivated when it comes to the recall, or may be suffering weakness in mobilization capacity in such a manner that does not allow for checking signatures.
The DPP’s policy explainer sessions are intended to explain the KMT’s budget cuts. The DPP will hold eight such events. By contrast, the KMT will hold 100 policy explainers aimed at combating DPP narratives.
KMT caucus leader Fu Kun-chi. Photo credit: Fu Kun-chi/Facebook
As the KMT has begun to call for a referendum on capital punishment and against what it terms as “martial law”–DPP measures aimed at curbing Chinese infiltration–the KMT is likely to focus its policy explainer sessions on drumming up publicity for its referendums. The policy explainers will likely prove to be de facto campaign rallies, with an emphasis on rallying the party base rather than necessarily directed toward swing voters.
The referendum against capital punishment aims to frame a Constitutional Court ruling last year as the de facto abolition of capital punishment. But capital punishment is still on the books in Taiwan, with the most recent execution taking place in January. As for the referendum against “martial law,” the KMT has framed the reintroduction of military courts to deal with espionage cases as a return to “martial law” in Taiwan. The DPP has instead stressed that the use of military courts will be limited to espionage cases, rather than directed at civilians.
The KMT is aiming to repeat its 2018 electoral successes, in which the KMT was seen as successfully leveraging on the referendum in order to ride to victory in electoral races. Yet a series of recalls proves very different from a referendum and it is not clear that one would impact the other.
Yet it is noteworthy how the KMT and DPP have both leaned on the popular vote as directed against the other. It is to be seen how the dynamics of the recalls and referendum prove different than an election year, then. Compared to an election, the central headquarters of both the KMT and DPP may not be able to divert as many resources to local branches. While the KMT has historically been seen as performing better at the local level than the DPP, which performs stronger closer to the national level, the KMT’s stumbles in recall signature collection may illustrate weakness.
Whether in the form of an election, hotly watched recall, or national referendum, Taiwan has effectively seen a national vote every year since the 2014 Sunflower Movement. This year proves no different. It is to be seen how the electoral contest plays out, then.