Do Voters Really Want a Repeat of Minority Government?

Do Voters Really Want a Repeat of Minority Government?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 11, 2011

Summary: DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen is a master at euphemisms. During the last presidential policy presentation, she suddenly proposed "negotiation style democracy." She touted the "spirit of a grand coalition." Essentially, she led voters concerned about the election around by the nose. Actually, Tsai Ing-wen had another agenda altogether. She and the DPP have never been able to calm public fears about one thing -- minority government. Even assuming she is elected president, the Democratic Progressive Party has no hope of winning a majority in the legislature. The Republic of China would once again have to endure minority government.

Full Text Below:

DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen is a master at euphemisms. During the last presidential policy presentation, she suddenly proposed "negotiation style democracy." She touted the "spirit of a grand coalition." Essentially, she led voters concerned about the election around by the nose. Actually, Tsai Ing-wen had another agenda altogether. She and the DPP have never been able to calm public fears about one thing -- minority government. Even assuming she is elected president, the Democratic Progressive Party has no hope of winning a majority in the legislature. The Republic of China would once again have to endure minority government.

To say that Tsai Ing-wen plays word games is not to single her out for criticism. Democracy has been around for two centuries. This includes the concept of a "grand coalition." They have all been implemented before. They all have precedents. They should not be invoked nilly-willy. They should not be invoked in order to mislead the public.

A so-called "grand coalition" usually refers to a coalition between the largest and second largest party in the legislature. Such a grand coalition commands far more than a simple majority. Often it commands a two-thirds super majority. This is not a normal situation. Why? Because the second largest party is also the main opposition party. It normally hopes the ruling party will make a mistake, enabling it to come to power the next time around. The only time it is willing to join the ruling administration, is when the nation in distress, when both the government and the opposition must deal with a national crisis. The most famous example of this occurred during World War II. The British Conservative Party held a majority. Nevertheless the Labor Party and the Liberal Party were willing to form a wartime cabinet. The same was true during the 1966 Soviet invasion of Prague. In response to the crisis, Germany's two largest political parties, the Christian Democratic Union and the Social Democratic Party, also established a coalition government.

The most recent example of a grand coalition in one of the major democracies, was Germany during the 2005 general election. Public opinion was divided. Neither the Christian Democratic Union nor the Social Democratic Party were able to command an absolute majority. Negotiations between the two parties led to a coalition government. Merkel's Christian Democratic Union held one more seat. This made her the Chancellor. But the Social Democrats obtained most of the cabinet posts. including those pertaining to diplomatic, financial, judicial, and other important matters. More importantly, any cabinet policies required a bipartisan consensus.

Contrast the theory and reality of grand coalitions outlined above, with Tsai Ing-wen's proposed coalition government. Tsai's proposal amounts to castles in the air. In order to form a grand coalition, the Democratic Progressive Party's coalition partners would not be the TSU, PFP, and other small parties. It would be the KMT. But why wouldn't the KMT follow the example set by the DPP? Why wouldn't it, as the largest opposition party, simply sit tight? Why wouldn't it avoid blame for the ruling DPP government's mistakes? This would enable it to return to power in the future. Why should it have to clean up the mess left by a coalition government?

Furthermore, a grand coalition government requires party to party negotiations for cabinet appointments and policy consultations. Recall the first time the Democratic Progressive Party assumed power. Chen Shui-bian shouted empty platitudes about an "all peoples government." But when the KMT called for party approval of cabinet appointments and dismissals, the DPP immediately accused the KMT of "trying to hog the entire dish." KMT elder Tang Fei stepped forward to inspire confidence in the fledgling DPP administration. Alone and isolated, he assumed the premiership, He headed a cabinet handpicked by Chen and the DPP. A mere 137 days later, the ruling DPP denounced Tang Fei as a "stumbling block." Given such precedents, who actually believes the DPP would ever grant important positions to other political parties?

The reality Tsai Ing-wen failed to mention, is that even if she is elected president, the DPP is unlikely to win a legislative majority. The nation would then revisit the chaos of 2000. The question now is not whether to form a coalition government. The question now is whether to have the majority party form a cabinet.

If Tsai Ing-wen were to ask former President Lee Teng-hui, the answer would be very clear. In 1997, following amendments to the constitution, the Republic of China's central government was leaning toward a dual leadership system, in the event the president fails to win a legislative majority. The amendments abolished the legislature's right to approve the president's choice of premier. But if the premier lacks support from a majority in the legislature, he will be paralyzed. Neither the Presidential Office nor the Executive Yuan would be able to advance policy. But this is a relatively minor matter. Other matters are more serious. An opposition-dominated legislature commands an advantage when passing legislation. This could lead to a tug of war in the executive branch. It could lead to a contest to see who can offer the most advantages. The government would be unable to implement policy. It would be unable to plan for the future.

The Democratic Progressive Party ruled for eight years, It endured the fate of a minority government. Yet it refused to do things the proper way, It refused to hold party to party negotiations with the majority party in the legislature to reach negotiated solutions. Instead, it repeatedly concocted such ersatz entities as the "National Security Alliance," whose sole purpose was to induce individual KMT legislators to defect. The entire process was an abomination. The ruling DPP attempted to buy opposition legislators outright with cash. It used large bank loans as quid pro quo. It offered special advantages to businesses owned by individual legislators. Scandal after scandal erupted. This undermined the administration of government. It also undermined public confidence in the government.

The general election does more than elect a president. It also determines the composition of the legislature, and the configuration of the Central Government. Every presidential candidate has promised voters the moon. But can they actually deliver? The key is the configuration of the Central Government. The problem with Tsai Ing-wen is that she refuses to acknowledge the possibility of minority government. She refuses to follow the example set by President Ma. She should promise that if the DPP fails to win a legislative majority, it will form a cabinet with the opposition KMT. Instead, she has trotted out her utterly irrelevant "grand coalition government" to confuse the public.

This, minority government, is the truth that Tsai Ing-wen is afraid to face. Do Republic of China voters on really wish to relive the chaos of minority government?

選民還要重蹈少數政府困境?
2012-01-11中國時報

民進黨總統候選人蔡英文是玩弄名詞的高手，她在最後一場政見發表會，一下子丟出「協商式民主」、然後又是「大聯合政府精神」，讓關心選舉的選民跟著團團轉；其實，蔡英文意在言外、無法化解民眾疑慮的只有一件事，那就是即使她當選總統，民進黨無望在國會取得過半多數，台灣又將重蹈少數政府的困境。

說蔡英文玩弄名詞，並沒有刻意苛責她，畢竟，人類二百多年的民主運動史，包括「大聯合政府」這樣的概念，確實都曾被實踐過，都有確定的指涉，不宜濫用、刻意誤導。

所謂「大聯合政府」，通常指的是第一、二大黨的聯合，席次遠超過執政所需的半數，有時甚至超過三分之二；這是違反常態的聯合形態，因為，作為第二大黨的主要在野黨，都在等著執政黨犯錯，下次才可能執政，他們願意加入執政團隊，通常是因為國家處於緊急危難，朝野必須共赴國難；最著稱的例子就是第二次世界大戰期間，英國保守黨雖擁有多數席位，卻還是和工黨、自由黨組成戰時內閣；同樣的，一九六六年為了因應蘇聯入侵布拉格危機，德國的兩個主要政黨、基民黨及社民黨也合組大聯合政府。

主要民主國家最近一次的大聯合政府，是德國二○○五年大選，由於民意分歧，基民黨及社民黨兩黨都無法單獨過半，兩黨談判籌組大聯合政府，雖由多一席的基民黨梅克爾出任總理，但是社民黨取得多數席次，而且是外交、財政、司法等重要職務；更重要的是，內閣任何施政，都必須取得兩黨共識。

相較這些大聯合政府的理論及現實，蔡英文提出大聯合政府，可以說全在空中樓閣的階段。首先，若要籌組大聯合政府，民進黨在國會要聯合的對象不是台聯、親民黨等小黨，而必須是國民黨；但是，就國民黨而言，何不學過去的民進黨，穩坐最大在野黨的地位，不必承擔施政責任，將來還有重返執政的機會，何必去淌聯合政府的爛攤子？

其次，大聯合政府必然要透過黨對黨談判，進行職務分配、政策協商；觀諸民進黨首次執政前例，陳水扁當時喊出空泛的「全民政府」，國民黨要求黨進黨出，立即就遭致「全碗端去」的攻擊；當年的唐飛，以國民黨老臣身分出面為民進黨穩住政局，孤家寡人出任閣揆，幾乎由扁及民進黨決定了所有的閣員，但是只有一百三十七天，唐飛就成為民進黨施政的石頭；以這樣的前例，民進黨真的願意「施捨」重要職位給其他政黨嗎？

事實上，蔡英文沒有說出的真相是，她即使當選總統，民進黨可能無法取得國會多數，重蹈兩千年的亂局，這時的問題不在是否籌組聯合內閣，而在於是否由多數黨組閣。

蔡英文如果問問前總統李登輝，應該很清楚，一九九七年修憲後，台灣中央政府體制傾向雙首長制；一旦總統無法取得國會多數，即使修憲已取消國會的閣揆同意權，但是閣揆若不能得到國會多數支持，可說是寸步難行；所有的政策都出不了總統府或行政院，還算事小；更嚴重的是，屆時在野黨主控的國會，握有立法權的優勢，可能和行政部門在政策上較勁，競相釋出利多，國家施政必然因此割離破碎，不可能有前瞻性規畫。

民進黨過去執政八年，深受少數政府之苦。但是他們不願意採取正規的方式，與當時的國會多數黨，進行黨對黨協商談判解決；而是一再以籌組「國安聯盟」之名，事實上卻是對個別國民黨立委拉夫、進行招降納叛；其間過程可說是不堪聞問，有直接用錢收買的，有用巨額銀行貸款交換的，或是對立委個人企業直接給好處的。這些隔一段時間就爆出的醜聞，不但衝擊政府運作，也重挫人民對政府的信任感。

這一次的大選，不只要選出總統，也會決定國會的組成及中央政府的型態；每位總統候選人都對未來做出包山包海的承諾，但能不能真的落實，關鍵在於未來的中央政府型態。蔡英文的問題在於，她不肯誠實面對將來少數政府的可能性，不願效法馬總統宣示，若未能取得國會多數，將由在野黨組閣，而是拿出不相干的大聯合政府主張來混淆視聽。

這是蔡英文不敢說的少數政府真相，台灣的選民，還要再重蹈一次少數政府的亂局嗎？