Divergence or Convergence:The Transition of Party System in Taiwan Lin Gang Shanghai Jiao Tong University I.Introduction Taiwan's "nine-in-one"elections on November 29,2014 have revealed the changing sign of the two-party system on the island from an asymmetric toward a symmetric power relationship.The ruling Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT),which still controls both executive and legislative branches at the top level,has no longer maintained the majority local executives of Taiwan's 22 metropolises,counties and cities.Should the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)come back to power through the 2016 presidential election,Taiwan's party system may demonstrate a symmetric power relationship between the two main parties,featured by periodical power turnover. Theoretically,Taiwan's two-party system is shaped by both the electoral system and social cleavages.The electoral system,featuring mainly single-member-district plurality formula for legislative election,is favorable to symmetric two-party system and convergence of party politics in terms of policy platform and inner-party organizations. Taiwanese society featuring cumulative cleavages,however,is conducive to divergent party system.Since political democratization started in 1986,social cleavages have been transformed gradually from ethnic conflicts among people with different provincial backgrounds (the so-called Taiwanese who came to the island before 1945 and the so-called mainlanders who came after 1945)and ideological disputes around the direction and pace of political reform on the island to the cumulative cleavages on the issues of national identity,economic growth,social distribution,and environmental protection. While in the United States and many other democratic societies,the ideologically left-right issue is the main watershed distinguishing different parties,the fundamental conflict in Taiwan is over how to handle its relations with the mainland:should Taiwan be attached to the mainland or detached from the mainland in the future?Meanwhile,as a long-time ruling party on Taiwan except for the period of 2000-2008,the KMT takes economic growth as its priority while neglecting,more or less,a balanced regional development and social distribution.The DPP,on the other hand,has more connections with middle-and-small entrepreneurs,middle and working classes,as well as the southern part of Taiwan. This essay attempts to explore the transition of the party system in Taiwan through two dimensions:the evolution of power relations between the two parties from asymmetry to symmetry and the nature of party politics from divergence to convergence.Power relations are measured by votes,elected positions,regional distribution of political powers, and party identification among the general public,while the nature of party politics is observed from the distance between the two parties in terms of ideologies,social cleavage and policies.This essay assumes that one important precondition for a convergent party system is a symmetric power relationship between the ruling and opposition parties. Without periodical power turnover between different parties,the opposition party will be
1 Divergence or Convergence: The Transition of Party System in Taiwan Lin Gang Shanghai Jiao Tong University I. Introduction Taiwan’s “nine-in-one” elections on November 29, 2014 have revealed the changing sign of the two-party system on the island from an asymmetric toward a symmetric power relationship. The ruling Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which still controls both executive and legislative branches at the top level, has no longer maintained the majority local executives of Taiwan’s 22 metropolises, counties and cities. Should the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) come back to power through the 2016 presidential election, Taiwan’s party system may demonstrate a symmetric power relationship between the two main parties, featured by periodical power turnover. Theoretically, Taiwan’s two-party system is shaped by both the electoral system and social cleavages. The electoral system, featuring mainly single-member-district plurality formula for legislative election, is favorable to symmetric two-party system and convergence of party politics in terms of policy platform and inner-party organizations. Taiwanese society featuring cumulative cleavages, however, is conducive to divergent party system. Since political democratization started in 1986, social cleavages have been transformed gradually from ethnic conflicts among people with different provincial backgrounds (the so-called Taiwanese who came to the island before 1945 and the so-called mainlanders who came after 1945) and ideological disputes around the direction and pace of political reform on the island to the cumulative cleavages on the issues of national identity, economic growth, social distribution, and environmental protection. While in the United States and many other democratic societies, the ideologically left-right issue is the main watershed distinguishing different parties, the fundamental conflict in Taiwan is over how to handle its relations with the mainland: should Taiwan be attached to the mainland or detached from the mainland in the future? Meanwhile, as a long-time ruling party on Taiwan except for the period of 2000-2008, the KMT takes economic growth as its priority while neglecting, more or less, a balanced regional development and social distribution. The DPP, on the other hand, has more connections with middle-and-small entrepreneurs, middle and working classes, as well as the southern part of Taiwan. This essay attempts to explore the transition of the party system in Taiwan through two dimensions: the evolution of power relations between the two parties from asymmetry to symmetry and the nature of party politics from divergence to convergence. Power relations are measured by votes, elected positions, regional distribution of political powers, and party identification among the general public, while the nature of party politics is observed from the distance between the two parties in terms of ideologies, social cleavage and policies. This essay assumes that one important precondition for a convergent party system is a symmetric power relationship between the ruling and opposition parties. Without periodical power turnover between different parties, the opposition party will be
marginalized and may therefore resort to extra-systematic confrontation with the ruling party,thus making political compromise and consensual party politics impossible. Symmetric power relations between the ruling and opposition parties,however,cannot guarantee consensual party politics,as a divergent party system may result from other factors,such as social cleavages,different supporters of the main parties,as well as parties' traditional ideologies and policy platforms. II.Toward a Balanced Two Party System Party politics in Taiwan is associated with the birth of the DPP in 1986,with the KMT as the dominant ruling party until 2000.The splits of KMT in 1993 and 2000 have not only produced three new parties,the Chinese New Party (CNP),the People First Party (PFP)and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU),but also contributed to the DPP's dominance of executive power between 2000 and 2008.Still,the DPP administration was constrained by the majority Pan Blue camp (The KMT,CNP and PFP)in Taiwan's legislature during this period.Since 2008,the KMT has dominated both executive and legislative branches.In general,power relations between the two parties have been asymmetric at the top level,and are likely to change in the near future. A.Party System at the Local Level At the local level,power relations between the KMT and DPP are more balanced. From 1989 to 2014,Taiwan had conducted elections for city mayors and county magistrates seven times,and elections for Taipei and Kaohsiung metropolitan mayors six times.In 2010,Taipei County was upgraded as New Taipei City,Kaohsiung County became part of Kaohsiung City,Taichung County and Tainan County became part of new cities of Taichung and Tainan,respectively.In 2014,Taoyuan County was also upgraded as Taoyuan City.These six metropolises have about 69%of Taiwanese population and enjoy much more financial resources than the other 16 cities and counties.During the 2014 "nine-in-one"elections,the DPP not only maintained Kaohsiung and Tainan mayoral seats and took away Taipei,Taoyuan and Taichung mayoralties from the hands of the KMT,but also won the majority of local executive posts,thus increasing greatly the likelihood of the DPP's coming back to power in 2016(Table 1 2).1 Table 1 Vote and Seat Shares in Mayoral and Magisterial Elections(1989-2014) Year Seat KMT DPP PFP CNP Other Vote% Seat Vote% Seat Vote%Seat Vote% Seat Vote% Seat 1989 23 56.1 16 30.1 6 13.8 1 1993 23 47.5 15 41.0 6 3.1 0 8.4 2 1994 2 35.7 42.2 21.0 0 1.1 0 1997 23 42.1 8 43.2 12 1.4 0 13.1 3 1998 2 50.1 46.9 3.0 0 0.8 0 Although Mr.Ko Wen-je ran for Taiwan mayoral seat as a nonpartisan in 2014,he was actually endorsed by the DPP, which did not nominate a candidate for Taipei mayoral election
2 marginalized and may therefore resort to extra-systematic confrontation with the ruling party, thus making political compromise and consensual party politics impossible. Symmetric power relations between the ruling and opposition parties, however, cannot guarantee consensual party politics, as a divergent party system may result from other factors, such as social cleavages, different supporters of the main parties, as well as parties’ traditional ideologies and policy platforms. II. Toward a Balanced Two Party System Party politics in Taiwan is associated with the birth of the DPP in 1986, with the KMT as the dominant ruling party until 2000. The splits of KMT in 1993 and 2000 have not only produced three new parties, the Chinese New Party (CNP), the People First Party (PFP) and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), but also contributed to the DPP’s dominance of executive power between 2000 and 2008. Still, the DPP administration was constrained by the majority Pan Blue camp (The KMT, CNP and PFP) in Taiwan’s legislature during this period. Since 2008, the KMT has dominated both executive and legislative branches. In general, power relations between the two parties have been asymmetric at the top level, and are likely to change in the near future. A. Party System at the Local Level At the local level, power relations between the KMT and DPP are more balanced. From 1989 to 2014, Taiwan had conducted elections for city mayors and county magistrates seven times, and elections for Taipei and Kaohsiung metropolitan mayors six times. In 2010, Taipei County was upgraded as New Taipei City, Kaohsiung County became part of Kaohsiung City, Taichung County and Tainan County became part of new cities of Taichung and Tainan, respectively. In 2014, Taoyuan County was also upgraded as Taoyuan City. These six metropolises have about 69% of Taiwanese population and enjoy much more financial resources than the other 16 cities and counties. During the 2014 “nine-in-one” elections, the DPP not only maintained Kaohsiung and Tainan mayoral seats and took away Taipei, Taoyuan and Taichung mayoralties from the hands of the KMT, but also won the majority of local executive posts, thus increasing greatly the likelihood of the DPP’s coming back to power in 2016 (Table 1 & 2).1 Table 1 Vote and Seat Shares in Mayoral and Magisterial Elections (1989-2014) Year Seat KMT DPP PFP CNP Other Vote% Seat Vote% Seat Vote% Seat Vote% Seat Vote% Seat 1989 23 56.1 16 30.1 6 / / 13.8 1 1993 23 47.5 15 41.0 6 / 3.1 0 8.4 2 1994 2 35.7 1 42.2 1 / 21.0 0 1.1 0 1997 23 42.1 8 43.2 12 / 1.4 0 13.1 3 1998 2 50.1 1 46.9 1 / 3.0 0 0.8 0 1 Although Mr. Ko Wen-je ran for Taiwan mayoral seat as a nonpartisan in 2014, he was actually endorsed by the DPP, which did not nominate a candidate for Taipei mayoral election
2001 23 35.1 9 43.3 9 2.4 2 10.1 9.1 2 2002 2 57.9 1 41.0 1.1 0 2005 23 51.9 14 42.0 6 1.1 0.2 4.8 1 2006 2 52.1 1 44.1 1 2.6 0 / 1.2 0 2009 17 47.9 12 45.3 4 0 0 0 0 6.6 1 2010 5 44.5 3 49.9 2 5.6 0 2014 22 40.7 6 47.6 13 0 0 0 0 11.75 3 Total 167 / 87 62 3 2 13 Source:Central Election Commission.Taiwan. Table 2 The Outcome of Mayoral and Magisterial Elections(1989-2014) 1989 1993 1994 1997 1998 2001 2002 2005 2006 2009 2010 2014 Taipei / DPP KMT KMT KMT KMT NP Metropolis Taipei DPP DPP DPP DPP KMT / KMT KMT County Taichung KMT KMT/ DPP KMT KMT KMT DPP City Taichung KMT KMT/ DPP KMT KMT County Tainan KMT KMT DPP DPP DPP DPP DPP City Tainan KMT DPP DPP DPP DPP County Kaohsiung KMT DPP DPP DPP DPP DPP Metropolis Kaohsiung DPP DPP DPP DPP DPP County Taoyuan KMT KMT DPP KMT KMT KMT DPP County Jilong KMT KMT DPP KMT KMT KMT DPP City Yilan DPP DPP DPP DPP KMT DPP DPP County Hsinchu KMT KMT DPP KMT KMT KMT / DPP City Hsinchu DPP DPP DPP KMT KMT KMT KMT County Miaoli KMT NP NP NP KMT KMT KMT County Changhua DPP KMT KMT DPP KMT KMT DPP County Nantou KMT KMT NP DPP KMT KMT KMT
3 2001 23 35.1 9 43.3 9 2.4 2 10.1 1 9.1 2 2002 2 57.9 1 41.0 1 / / / / 1.1 0 2005 23 51.9 14 42.0 6 1.1 1 0.2 1 4.8 1 2006 2 52.1 1 44.1 1 2.6 0 / / 1.2 0 2009 17 47.9 12 45.3 4 0 0 0 0 6.6 1 2010 5 44.5 3 49.9 2 / / / / 5.6 0 2014 22 40.7 6 47.6 13 0 0 0 0 11.75 3 Total 167 / 87 / 62 / 3 / 2 / 13 Source: Central Election Commission, Taiwan. Table 2 The Outcome of Mayoral and Magisterial Elections (1989-2014) 1989 1993 1994 1997 1998 2001 2002 2005 2006 2009 2010 2014 Taipei Metropolis / / DPP / KMT / KMT / KMT / KMT NP Taipei County DPP DPP / DPP / DPP / KMT / / KMT KMT Taichung City KMT KMT / DPP / KMT / KMT / / KMT DPP Taichung County KMT KMT / DPP / KMT / KMT / / Tainan City KMT KMT / DPP / DPP / DPP / / DPP DPP Tainan County KMT DPP / DPP / DPP / DPP / / Kaohsiung Metropolis / / KMT / DPP / DPP / DPP / DPP DPP Kaohsiung County DPP DPP / DPP / DPP / DPP / / Taoyuan County KMT KMT / DPP / KMT / KMT / KMT / DPP Jilong City KMT KMT / DPP / KMT / KMT / KMT / DPP Yilan County DPP DPP / DPP / DPP / KMT / DPP / DPP Hsinchu City KMT KMT / DPP / KMT / KMT / KMT / DPP Hsinchu County DPP DPP / DPP / KMT / KMT / KMT / KMT Miaoli County KMT NP / NP / NP / KMT / KMT / KMT Changhua County DPP KMT / KMT / DPP / KMT / KMT / DPP Nantou KMT KMT / NP / DPP / KMT / KMT / KMT
County Yunlin KMT KMT KMT KMT DPP DPP DPP County Chiayi NP NP NP NP KMT KMT DPP City Chiayi KMT KMT KMT DPP DPP DPP DPP County Pingtung DPP KMT DPP DPP DPP DPP DPP County Hualian KMT KMT KMT KMT KMT NP NP County Taitung KMT KMT KMT PFP NP KMT KMT County Penghu KMT DPP KMT KMT KMP KMT DPP County Kinmon KMT KMT KMT CNP CNP KMT NP Mazu KMT KMT KMT PFP PFP KMT KMT Source:Central Election Commission,Taiwan From Table 1,it can be seen that the KMT and the DPP usually obtained more than 85%of votes during mayoral and magisterial elections,except for the year of 1994,when the CNP candidate for Taipei's mayoralty received 30%of the votes(21%if we calculate on the total votes for Taipei and Kaohsiung mayoral elections)and the year of 2001 when the KMT-supported CNP candidate for Taipei County's magisterial seat gained significant votes.Among 167 mayoralties and magistracies elected over the past quarter of a century the two main parties received 149 positions(89.2%),and other small parties and nonparty candidates obtained 18 only (10.8%).As for the two main parties,the KMT obtained much more position than the DPP(87 versus 62).The KMT's clear majority came mainly from city mayoral and county magisterial elections in the early years.As for the metropolitan mayoral elections,the two parties divided the mayoralties evenly from the very beginning-each obtained four seats between 1994 and 2006.During the 2010 mayoral elections,the KMT managed to maintain three seats out of five while the DPP maintained two.The votes the KMT got that year(44.5%)should not be taken at its face value,as the votes of independent candidate for Kaohsiung mayoralty Yang Chiu-hsing (Yang Qiuxing)came mainly from the KMT supporters but were not taken into account in the official figures.Without the factor of independent Yang,the KMT and the DPP might have then obtained similar vote shares. The KMT's advantage over the DPP in city mayoral and county magisterial elections began to change in 1997,when the DPP received a little more votes but much more executive positions than the KMT.2 The KMT again enjoyed supremacy in the 2005 and 2009 local elections,but ended up with a great defeat in 2014.During the 2014 elections, the KMT obtained only one metropolitan mayoralty (New Taipei)and five county 2 Dafydd Fell,Government and Politics in Taiwan (London&New York:Roudledge,2012),p.60
4 County Yunlin County KMT KMT / KMT / KMT / DPP / DPP / DPP Chiayi City NP NP / NP / NP / KMT / KMT / DPP Chiayi County KMT KMT / KMT / DPP / DPP / DPP / DPP Pingtung County DPP KMT / DPP / DPP / DPP / DPP / DPP Hualian County KMT KMT / KMT / KMT / KMT / NP / NP Taitung County KMT KMT / KMT / PFP / NP / KMT / KMT Penghu County KMT DPP / KMT / KMT / KMP / KMT / DPP Kinmon KMT KMT / KMT / CNP / CNP / KMT / NP Mazu KMT KMT / KMT / PFP / PFP / KMT / KMT Source: Central Election Commission, Taiwan. From Table 1, it can be seen that the KMT and the DPP usually obtained more than 85% of votes during mayoral and magisterial elections, except for the year of 1994, when the CNP candidate for Taipei’s mayoralty received 30% of the votes (21% if we calculate on the total votes for Taipei and Kaohsiung mayoral elections) and the year of 2001 when the KMT-supported CNP candidate for Taipei County’s magisterial seat gained significant votes. Among 167 mayoralties and magistracies elected over the past quarter of a century the two main parties received 149 positions (89.2%), and other small parties and nonparty candidates obtained 18 only (10.8%). As for the two main parties, the KMT obtained much more position than the DPP (87 versus 62). The KMT’s clear majority came mainly from city mayoral and county magisterial elections in the early years. As for the metropolitan mayoral elections, the two parties divided the mayoralties evenly from the very beginning—each obtained four seats between 1994 and 2006. During the 2010 mayoral elections, the KMT managed to maintain three seats out of five while the DPP maintained two. The votes the KMT got that year (44.5%) should not be taken at its face value, as the votes of independent candidate for Kaohsiung mayoralty Yang Chiu-hsing (Yang Qiuxing) came mainly from the KMT supporters but were not taken into account in the official figures. Without the factor of independent Yang, the KMT and the DPP might have then obtained similar vote shares. The KMT’s advantage over the DPP in city mayoral and county magisterial elections began to change in 1997, when the DPP received a little more votes but much more executive positions than the KMT.2 The KMT again enjoyed supremacy in the 2005 and 2009 local elections, but ended up with a great defeat in 2014. During the 2014 elections, the KMT obtained only one metropolitan mayoralty (New Taipei) and five county 2 Dafydd Fell, Government and Politics in Taiwan (London & New York: Roudledge, 2012), p.60
magistracies.Even if we consider Hualian County Magistrate Fu Kun-chi (Fu Kunqi)and Quemoy County Magistrate Chen Fu-hai as pro-KMT figures,people living in the Blue area only account for 26.78%of the total population.Moreover,the gap of vote shares between the KMT and the DPP in 2014 local executive elections is actually much bigger than the official figure of 7%.It is safe to say that the DPP-supported independent candidate for Taipei mayoralty Ko Wen-je (Ke Wenzhe)received significant votes from the Green camp (at least 75%),while votes cast in Hualian and Quemoy for two independent and elected candidates basically belong to the Blue camp.In balance,the DPP's vote share would be 11.2%higher than the KMT in the local executive elections. The KMT usually enjoyed majority seats in metropolitan,city and county councils The first change occurred in 2002,when the DPP won 14 seats in Kaohsiung council, while the KMT and the PFP had 12 and 7 seats respectively.More meaningful change happened in the 2010 metropolitan council elections,when the KMT and the DPP each obtained 130 seats of the five councils.During the 2014 elections,among 907 seats of 22 local councils,the KMT won 386 while the DPP got 291.The vote shares of the two parties,however,were quite close (36.86%vs.37.08%).Among 360 seats of the six metropolitan councils,the DPP won 167 while the KMT maintained 151.By contrast, among 547 seats of 16 city and county councils,the KMT won 235 and the DPP obtained 124.At the township chief and township council level,the KMT still enjoys clear majority over the DPP.Similar advantages exist at the village and neighborhood level as well. In a nutshell,the evaporation of the KMT's supremacy over the DPP started at the metropolis mayoral elections,continued with elections for city mayoralties and county magistracies,and ended with metropolitan council elections.The periodical changes of electoral outcomes at the local executive level have harbingered the transition from asymmetric to symmetric power relations between the two parties at the lower and higher levels. B.Party System at the Top Level Despite the shift of power at the local level,power relations between the KMT and DPP are still asymmetric on top,particularly in the legislature.From 1993 to 2000,Taiwan had three relevant parties in legislature:the KMT as the dominant party,the DPP as the middle sized one,and the Chinese New Party as the smallest player.During the 2001 and 2004 legislative elections,the DPP became the biggest party,with more than 33%of votes and about 40%of seats,while the KMT dropped into the second largest party,being followed by the PFP,the TSU and the CNP.However,the Pan Blue camp consisting of the KMT,the PFP and the CNP was still bigger than the Pan Green camp combining the DPP and the TSU (Table 3). The drastic confrontation in legislature dominated by the Pan Blue camp after 2000 resulted in a comprehensive reform on Taiwan's electoral system.This reform initiated in the summer of 2004 but not implemented until January 2008 made three significant changes.First,the number of legislators was cut in half because of social reaction against poor performance of the legislature as well as the administration.Second,the electoral date for legislators was postponed from the scheduled December 2007 to January 2008, resulting in a four-years term for legislators.Third and most importantly,the majority
5 magistracies. Even if we consider Hualian County Magistrate Fu Kun-chi (Fu Kunqi) and Quemoy County Magistrate Chen Fu-hai as pro-KMT figures, people living in the Blue area only account for 26.78% of the total population. Moreover, the gap of vote shares between the KMT and the DPP in 2014 local executive elections is actually much bigger than the official figure of 7%. It is safe to say that the DPP-supported independent candidate for Taipei mayoralty Ko Wen-je (Ke Wenzhe) received significant votes from the Green camp (at least 75%), while votes cast in Hualian and Quemoy for two independent and elected candidates basically belong to the Blue camp. In balance, the DPP’s vote share would be 11.2% higher than the KMT in the local executive elections. The KMT usually enjoyed majority seats in metropolitan, city and county councils. The first change occurred in 2002, when the DPP won 14 seats in Kaohsiung council, while the KMT and the PFP had 12 and 7 seats respectively. More meaningful change happened in the 2010 metropolitan council elections, when the KMT and the DPP each obtained 130 seats of the five councils. During the 2014 elections, among 907 seats of 22 local councils, the KMT won 386 while the DPP got 291. The vote shares of the two parties, however, were quite close (36.86% vs. 37.08%). Among 360 seats of the six metropolitan councils, the DPP won 167 while the KMT maintained 151. By contrast, among 547 seats of 16 city and county councils, the KMT won 235 and the DPP obtained 124. At the township chief and township council level, the KMT still enjoys clear majority over the DPP. Similar advantages exist at the village and neighborhood level as well. In a nutshell, the evaporation of the KMT’s supremacy over the DPP started at the metropolis mayoral elections, continued with elections for city mayoralties and county magistracies, and ended with metropolitan council elections. The periodical changes of electoral outcomes at the local executive level have harbingered the transition from asymmetric to symmetric power relations between the two parties at the lower and higher levels. B. Party System at the Top Level Despite the shift of power at the local level, power relations between the KMT and DPP are still asymmetric on top, particularly in the legislature. From 1993 to 2000, Taiwan had three relevant parties in legislature: the KMT as the dominant party, the DPP as the middle sized one, and the Chinese New Party as the smallest player. During the 2001 and 2004 legislative elections, the DPP became the biggest party, with more than 33% of votes and about 40% of seats, while the KMT dropped into the second largest party, being followed by the PFP, the TSU and the CNP. However, the Pan Blue camp consisting of the KMT, the PFP and the CNP was still bigger than the Pan Green camp combining the DPP and the TSU (Table 3). The drastic confrontation in legislature dominated by the Pan Blue camp after 2000 resulted in a comprehensive reform on Taiwan’s electoral system. This reform initiated in the summer of 2004 but not implemented until January 2008 made three significant changes. First, the number of legislators was cut in half because of social reaction against poor performance of the legislature as well as the administration. Second, the electoral date for legislators was postponed from the scheduled December 2007 to January 2008, resulting in a four-years term for legislators. Third and most importantly, the majority