Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: 護國大遶境/Facebook
THE FIRST ROUND of recall voting in Taiwan took place today. The results, however, mostly indicate a defeat for pro-recall campaigners, in that no KMT legislators were recalled.
24 legislators and one mayor were up for recall today. Turnout was higher than expected. By noon, there was around 30% turnout in Taipei, Taichung, Yunlin, Hualien, and elsewhere. Votes sometimes did not meet benchmarks to be binding either, but were all defeated by votes against the recall outnumbering votes in favor of the recall.
Though there was anticipation ahead of time that typhoons regionally could have affected voting, including that some areas might have to suspend voting, rain faded in many areas of Taiwan by the afternoon. There were some reports of voters having difficulty locating voting sites, due to locked gates, particularly in Hualien, as well as some incidents of disturbances at voting sites.
But for the most part, voting took place without incident. The most unusual incident that took place during voting was KMT commentator Jaw Shaw-kong accidentally showing his ballot to the media while posing, resulting in the probable disqualification of his ballot. Though the incident resulted in the Taipei police questioning Jaw, Jaw acknowledged the mistake early on and called on others not to imitate him.
Former Taipei mayor and TPP founder Ko Wen-je applied for an injunction to be released from jail in order to vote, but was denied on the basis that if Ko was allowed to vote, similar measures would have to be rolled out for other detainees. The TPP likely expected this outcome but hoped to rally voters through anger against Ko continuing to face jail time on corruption charges.
The DPP would have needed to flip six seats in the legislature in order to retake the majority. Though another round of recall voting will take place in August, the results today suggest that the DPP will not be able to change the balance of power in the legislature. Legislators who faced recall today will not be able to face another recall campaign for two years. Likewise, for future recalls, regulations implemented by the TPP and KMT will make it more difficult to collect signatures for recalls, in that ID checks have been implemented for future recalls, and called on others not to imitate him.
The recalls were historically unprecedented. If there have been attempts to conduct recalls of KMT legislators before, they never happened on a nationwide scale. The public was angered by a series of KMT-led actions within the space of two years, including attempting to drastically expand legislative powers in a manner that pried powers from the judiciary and executive, conducting the largest set of budget cuts in Taiwanese political history, and freezing the Constitutional Court.
What proved surprising in the course of recall campaigning, however, was that the KMT was unable to collect sufficient signatures to organize “revenge recalls” of DPP legislators. This seems to indicate that the KMT party machine is not as functional as it used to be. Even so, this was still sufficient to mobilize enough KMT voters in order to vote down recalls.
Recall rally yesterday night. Photo credit: 護國大遶境/Facebook
One notes that the recall vote was to decide whether KMT legislators kept their jobs or not. As such, even if the narrative adopted by pro-recall organizers was that they were acting against KMT legislators who were driven to alter Taiwan’s political system because of directives of China, voters may not have necessarily been voting on the basis of cross-strait fears, or in the hopes of rebuking President Lai Ching-te. Moreover, the districts in which recall votes were all being held slanted pan-Blue to begin with.
At the same time, it is probable that the KMT will frame the results as such. If the KMT has largely hung back and avoided carrying out drastic actions in the past half year that recall campaigns have under way, the KMT may now decide that they have the mandate in order to continue pressing forward with such initiatives. In fact, the KMT may pursue such initiatives with renewed fervor.
Indeed, the KMT blocking the DPP’s seven nominees for the Constitutional Court earlier this week, and ensuring that the Constitutional Court continues to be frozen, proves one example of how the KMT will likely remain committed to scorched earth tactics. It proved surprising at the time that the KMT was willing to risk outraging the public shortly before the recall through the move.
With jockeying in the party ahead of the 2028 presidential elections for the presidential nomination, as well as for upcoming party chair elections later this year, the positions of Taipei mayor Chiang Wan-an and Taichung mayor Lu Shiow-yen have been strengthened. Suggestions after the KMT’s recall success are that current party chair Eric Chu may step aside in favor of Lu, though this is unclear at present.
Some views as to the failure of the recall vote are that the civil society groups took center stage in organizing, while the DPP tried to play a supportive role, but allowed civil society groups to remain in focus. One argument, then, is that the DPP should have taken on a more central role, with its stronger party apparatus.
That being said, the KMT will continue to lean into the narrative that the DPP was behind the recalls and that it was seeking to undermine democratic institutions in doing so. Heated rhetoric ahead of the recall vote, with pan-Blue supporters such as Holger Chen comparing the DPP to Nazis, indicates that such attacks on the DPP will continue.
It is also possible that the DPP itself was unstrategic with its distribution of resources, focusing on targeting Fu Kun-chi and other high-profile targets, when there should have been more focus on attacking KMT legislators who had only won by slim margins in the last election.
To this extent, it may be the case that the Taiwanese public at large was not mobilized by cross-strait fears, as the DPP leaned into ahead of the vote. The outcome of the recall vote could have also been influenced by that this was not a presidential election and there was no strong central candidate to mobilize voters more generally.
It is to be seen whether there is any reckoning within the pan-Green camp about recall strategy, such as with regard to Lai Ching-te’s ten speeches declared ahead of the recalls, or DPP legislative caucus leader Ker Chien-ming pushing the party into a series of recall campaigns.
Either way, it is improbable that the energy and momentum that went into the Great Recall Movement and the Bluebird Movement last year will dissipate. The sudden emergence of such movements, in fact, is not at the end of any trajectory of successive social movements, such as led to the 2014 Sunflower Movement, but more likely signals the start of another trajectory of social movements. And if the attempt last year with the Bluebird Movement was to quickly divert energy into electoral organizing, with the apparent failure of such electoral outcomes, one can expect to see a return to social movement dynamics.