Font size: 
Right after Chen's resignation, DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh became acting party chairman and called an overnight meeting with the party leadership. Hsieh consoled the party candidates who lost in the elections and tried to cheer up the membership by promising to quit politics if he loses the presidential election in March.
On the other hand, the Kuomintang did not exult in its win in the legislative elections. Both KMT Chairman Wu Po-hsiung and the party's presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou assumed a humble attitude.
Ma reiterated that the win should serve as a critical reminder that power tends to corrupt. He urged party members to remain humble and promise to avoid corruption. Meanwhile, he asked the general public to trust the KMT one more time.
Compared to the attitudes of the leaders on both sides in the last two presidential elections, the mindsets demonstrated in the legislative elections show clear progress -- the winner is not insolent, the loser is not dejected, and both respect the choices of the public.
Based on the results of this "skirmish," some analysts believe that the KMT will win the March presidential election, while others predict a "pendulum effect," inferring that the people will not want Taiwan to be controlled by a single party and many will therefore vote for Frank Hsieh.
However, an examination of the votes cast for the legislators shows that KMT candidates received a high percentage of the vote even when they lost, whereas several DPP candidates won with only a slight majority. Facing this kind of public opinion, it will be tough for Hsieh to win back the people's hearts.
Many consider that the DPP's failure resulted from its hard line on the issue of Taiwan's independence. On the other hand, some are worried that the KMT may strive for a "united front" with the Chinese Communist Party in the mainland.
Both of these opinions fail to grasp the real thinking of the masses in Taiwan, however.
In Taiwan, everyone actually understands that the issue of Taiwan's independence or unification with China is a pseudo-issue, generated for the sake of the elections by both parties. The general public in Taiwan is also sick and tired of the political manipulation of conflicts between ethnic groups.
Taiwan has long been an independent political entity with its own political power, and the Republic of China has not ceased to exist. All the presidents elected in Taiwan were elected presidents of the Republic of China, not of Taiwan. Taiwan is not currently under China's rule, so why does it need to seek "independence"?
Yet ever since Chen Shui-bian took up his post, he has been working hard to play games with this issue, pushing to eliminate the culture, symbols, and many traditions related to China. Taiwan's unwillingness to be dominated by communist political power and to become a province of the mainland is widely known. But there is no need to create difficulties by taking on China. After all, the Chinese Communist Party does not equal China.
Thus, Chen Shui-bian really went overboard on the issues of independence versus unification, and eliminating China's influence, which aroused negative feelings among the people. The DPP should deeply reflect on this.
Concerning a potential alliance with the CCP if Ma wins the presidency, this is not likely to happen.
Throughout his political history, Ma has held a firm anti-communist position. The CCP will not even let him enter Hong Kong. Ma is different from former KMT leader Lien Chan. Lien sold out his own political values in order to get close to the CCP, representing the interests of the pro-Beijing camp within the KMT. But he represents neither the mainstream within the party nor public opinion within the island.
Furthermore, even if the KMT resumes power in Taiwan, the CCP will not abandon its policy of suppressing Taiwan in the international community. It will be impossible for the KMT to bear this suppression from the CCP and discuss unification with it at the same time. If the KMT takes such an approach, the people will immediately demand that the party step down.
The people in Taiwan have utilized their right to attack the president over his use of an expense account, while citizens on the mainland are not allowed to say a word about the tremendous corruption involving misuse of billions of dollars of public money by CCP officials.
How could the Taiwanese endure living under such rule? Or, if Taiwan agreed to unite with the mainland under the "one country, two systems" formula, would it mean, "We continue our way of corruption and you continue your clean style?"
If so, what sense does it make to be unified as a single state? If unification is desirable and achievable by the people of both sides, it should be under a democratic system. However, the CCP would never agree to unify the nation, including Taiwan, under a democratic system. On the other hand, on the Taiwanese side, there does not appear to be a great leader with the resolution to push for this. Ma Ying-jeou appears to have the heart, but not the strength.
Therefore, the best alternative is to maintain the status quo with China. Whoever seeks to change it will be asked to step down. Whether the DPP or the KMT or any other party is in power, in Taiwan what counts are the citizens' views. In canvassing for votes, the two parties have practically had to go house to house, adding up ballots one by one.
The legislative elections showed that democracy is maturing, going beyond fights and irresponsible attitudes on the part of the two parties. As long as Taiwan can banish the demon of the struggle between independence and unification, democracy can develop in a healthy way.
Both the blue and green camps need to think of the interests of Taiwan's 23 million people. The party that is out of office can monitor the ruling party; the ruling party can take a rest when it grows tired and allow the other party to have its turn at governing. Under a democratic system, no matter which party wins in an election, the people are the real winners, as the winning party is decided by the people's votes.
If Taiwan can set a good example in this, it will ultimately benefit China. The people in China may one day ask, "Since Taiwan can do it, why can't we?" The citizens have the final say in Taiwan. So should it also be in China.
--
(Chen Weijian is editor-in-chief of the Chinese-language newspaper "Xin Bao" in New Zealand, and a well-known critic of current affairs. He emigrated from China to New Zealand in 1991. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at http://news.boxun.com/news/gb/pubvp/2008/01/200801171500.shtml. ©Copyright Chen Weijian.)
